Order Code RL31865
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Updated March 23, 2006
Libby Perl
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. For FY2006, Congress twice appropriated
funds for LIHEAP. First, Congress appropriated approximately $2.161 billion, of
which $1.98 billion is regular funds (allotted to all states) and $181 million is
emergency contingency funds (allotted to one or more states at the Administration’s
discretion). The funds were appropriated in the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149), and were then
subject to a 1% across-the-board rescission in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148).
Congress added funds to LIHEAP for FY2007 in the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, P.L. 109-171, enacted February 8, 2006; Congress then made the funds
available for FY2006 through S. 2320, which the President signed into law on March
20, 2006 (P.L. 109-204). The Deficit Reduction Act had appropriated $1 billion for
LIHEAP for FY2007 — $250 million for regular funds and $750 million for
contingency funds. However, S. 2320 changed the allocation of funds — $500
million for regular funds and $500 million for contingency funds — in addition to
making them available for FY2006. Thus, a total of $3.161 billion has been
appropriated for LIHEAP for FY2006, of which $2.48 billion is regular funds and
$681 million is contingency funds.
The President’s budget proposes $1.782 billion for LIHEAP in FY2007, all of
which would be allocated to regular funds. On March 16, 2006, the Senate voted in
favor of the FY2007 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 83. As part of the Budget
Resolution, Senator Jack Reed introduced an amendment, S.Amdt. 3074, to add
$3.318 billion to LIHEAP funds, bringing the total assumed for LIHEAP in FY2007
to $5.1 billion. The amendment passed by a vote of 51-49.
On January 5, 2006, the Administration released its first distribution of
contingency funds for FY2006. The release totaled $100 million, and funds were
distributed to all states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories. In FY2005, the
Administration released $277.25 million of the $298 million in available contingency
funds. The first three of four contingency fund distributions, totaling $250 million,
were made to all states on December 23, 2004, January 31, 2005, and March 1, 2005.
On September 2, 2005, a fourth distribution of $27.25 million was made to Alabama,
Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (See Table 2.)
In FY2003, the most current year for which data is available, some 4.8 million
households received LIHEAP heating/winter crisis assistance, with an average
benefit of $312, compared with an estimated 4.4 million households in FY2002.
More than 493,000 households received cooling aid in FY2003, with an average
benefit of $148, down from 570,000 in FY2002. This report will be updated as
legislative or program activities warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2006 LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2007 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
LIHEAP Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Energy Act Reauthorizes LIHEAP Through FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
LIHEAP Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Program Rules and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Households Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Benefit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funds and Their Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Regular Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
LIHEAP Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Final FY2005 and FY2006 LIHEAP Funding,
and Proposed FY2007 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Recent LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2003 to FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

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. For FY2006, Congress first
appropriated $2.161 billion to the program, which includes a 1% across-the-board
rescission as mandated by the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-
148). On March 20, 2006, the President signed P.L. 109-204, which makes an
additional $1 billion available for LIHEAP in FY2006, $500 million for regular
funds, and $500 million for contingency funds.
In FY2003, the most current year for which data could be obtained from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an estimated 4.8 million
households received help meeting heating costs (i.e., heating assistance and/or
winter/year-round crisis assistance).1 In FY2003 more than 493,000 households
received cooling assistance, and over 71,000 received summer crisis aid.2
Approximately 111,000 households received weatherization assistance through
LIHEAP in FY2003.
Recent Developments
FY2006 LIHEAP Funding. Congress appropriated a total of $3.161 billion
to LIHEAP for FY2006 in two separate laws. The Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-149, allocated $2
billion for regular funds to be distributed to all states, and $183 million as emergency
contingency funds, which may be distributed at the discretion of the Secretary of
HHS. After a 1% across-the-board rescission in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, P.L. 109-148, these amounts were reduced to $1.98 billion and
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Report to Congress for FY2003. (Hereafter referred to as LIHEAP Report to
Congress for FY2003.)
2 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.

---

CRS-2
$181 million.3 The contingency funds remain available through September 30, 2006.
Because funds were not appropriated until the end of December 2005, Congress
passed three continuing resolutions to fund LIHEAP prior to the passage of P.L. 109-
149.4
Congress made available an additional $1 billion for LIHEAP in S. 2320, which
the President signed into law on March 20, 2006, P.L. 109-204. Senator Snowe
introduced S. 2320 on February 16, 2006. It proposed to shift funds originally
appropriated to LIHEAP for FY2007, in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
171), to FY2006. P.L. 109-171 had appropriated $1 billion for LIHEAP for FY2007
— $250 million for regular funds and $750 million for contingency funds. On March
2, 2006, the Senate began to debate S. 2320, and voted 66 to 31 to waive the Budget
Act. The Senate then passed an amendment by Senator John Kyl (S.Amdt. 2899) to
distribute the entire $1 billion as regular block grant funds. The bill was further
amended on March 7, when the Senate voted in favor of Senator Snowe’s
amendment to allocate $500 million to regular funds and $500 million to contingency
funds (S.Amdt. 2913). The Senate voted in favor of the bill that same day. Then, on
March 16, the House also voted in favor of S. 2320, and the President signed the bill
on March 20. The contingency funds remain available until September 30, 2006.
Due to high anticipated heating costs for the winter of 2005-2006,5 Congress
made a number of efforts to appropriate additional funds to LIHEAP for FY2006.
Initially, the President’s FY2006 budget proposed a total of $2 billion for LIHEAP,
of which $1.8 billion was requested for regular funds. Out of the regular fund
amount, $500,000 would have been reserved for a “feasibility study” to “identify
options for a thorough and objective evaluation” of the program.6
In the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
appropriations bill (H.R. 3010), the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-
143) recommended $1.985 billion in LIHEAP funding. However, this proposal was
3 In previous years, HHS has made proportionate cuts in the individual budget authorities
within LIHEAP — regular funds, contingency funds, Leveraging Incentive and REACH
grants, and training and technical assistance — in order to comply with rescission requests.
4 P.L. 109-77 funded programs through November 18, 2005, P.L. 109-105 provided funding
through December 17, 2005, and P.L. 109-128 provided funding through December 31,
2005.
5 Energy Information Administration, “Short-Term Energy Outlook at Winter Fuels
Outlook,” December 6, 2005, available at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/forecasting/steo/
oldsteos/dec05.pdf]. The Short-Term Energy Outlook is updated monthly.
6 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2006, p. B16-
B-18) also appears to assume that $27.5 million of these regular funds will be set aside for
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Option grants. Although the statute [42 U.S.C. 8621(d)]
provides a separate authorization for Leveraging Incentive funds, Congress has not used this
authority to appropriate funds. Instead, as instructed by Congress (typically in the
conference report), HHS has set aside leveraging money from the regular funds
appropriation and, as permitted in the statute out of this set-aside, it has reserved 25% for
REACH grants [42 U.S.C. 8626b(b)- authority for FY1996-FY1999].

---

CRS-3
amended on the House floor to add $22 million, bringing the House-approved
FY2006 LIHEAP funding level in H.R. 3010 to $2.007 billion. All of these funds
would have been made available for regular funds. The Senate Appropriations
Committee (S.Rept. 109-103) recommended a total of $2.183 billion in LIHEAP
funds. Of this amount, $1.883 billion would have been available for regular funds,
out of which $500,000 would have been made available for the program evaluation
feasibility study (as requested by the President), and $27.5 million would have been
set-aside for Leveraging Incentive grants. The remaining $300 million would have
been available for contingency purposes.
When H.R. 3010 reached the Senate floor, four Senators proposed amendments
that would have added funds to LIHEAP in addition to the amounts provided in
S.Rept. 109-103. Senator Judd Gregg introduced two amendments to increase the
regular funds appropriation to $3.159 billion (S.Amdt. 2290 and S.Amdt. 2253).
Senator Jack Reed proposed to increase total LIHEAP funding to $5.1 billion
(S.Amdt. 2194). Finally, Senators Ben Nelson and Thomas Carper proposed to
increase the regular funds appropriation to $3.483 billion (S.Amdt. 2274). None of
the amendments passed, and the Senate approved the amounts in S.Rept. 109-103 in
a vote on October 27, 2005.
The first conference report for H.R. 3010 allocated a total of $2.183 billion for
LIHEAP (H.Rept. 109-300), of which $2 billion was allocated for regular funds and
$183 million for contingency funds. Of the $2 billion in regular funds, $27.5 million
was provided for Leveraging Incentive grants. On November 17, 2005, the House
failed to pass H.Rept. 109-300. After another conference, the second conference
report (H.Rept. 109-337) contained the identical amount of funding for LIHEAP.
The House approved H.Rept. 109-337 on December 14, 2005; the Senate approved
it on December 21, 2005. On December 30, the President signed the bill into law as
P.L. 109-149.
Two additional bills contained provisions that would have provided funding for
LIHEAP in FY2006. First, the conference report for the Department of Defense
appropriations bill (H.R. 2863, H.Rept. 109-359) would have appropriated an
additional $2 billion for LIHEAP for FY2006, of which $1.5 billion would have gone
to contingency funds, and $500 million would have gone to regular funds. However,
the additional LIHEAP funds were removed from H.Rept. 109-359 along with a
provision to allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR),
when, on December 21, 2005, the Senate failed to vote in favor of cloture on H.Rept.
109-359. The provision to allow for oil drilling prevented the cloture vote, and,
according to the sponsor of the ANWR provision, Senator Ted Stevens, LIHEAP
funding was tied to oil drilling. He stated that future proceeds from ANWR would
have paid for the $2 billion allocation to LIHEAP, and “unless ANWR is back in [the
bill], there is not money for LIHEAP....”7 As a result, when the Senate removed the
ANWR provision in order to ensure the bill’s passage, funding for LIHEAP was also
removed from the bill (S.Con.Res. 74).
7 Congressional Record, December 19, 2005, pp. S13991-S13992.

---

CRS-4
A second provision to fund LIHEAP was present in the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, H.R. 4939. The House Appropriations Committee adopted an
amendment by Representative David Obey, as modified by Representative Ralph
Regula, that would make available in FY2006 funds for LIHEAP that were
appropriated for FY2007 in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171).
Representative Obey’s amendment would have made the entire $1 billion in the
Deficit Reduction Act available for FY2006, while Representative Regula’s
amendment would make only the $750 million in contingency funds available for
FY2006. The bill would make the contingency funds available until the end of
FY2007. The House is expected to strike the LIHEAP provisions due to the passage
of S. 2320 (described in the Recent Developments section earlier in this report).
FY2007 Funding. In his FY2007 budget, the President would provide $1.782
billion for LIHEAP, all of which would be allocated to regular funds. On March 16,
2006, the Senate voted in favor of the FY2007 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res. 83.
As part of the Budget Resolution, Senator Jack Reed introduced an amendment,
S.Amdt. 3074, to add $3.318 billion to LIHEAP funds, bringing the total amount
assumed in the resolution for LIHEAP in FY2007 to $5.1 billion. The amendment
passed by a vote of 51-49.
Table 1 shows LIHEAP funding for FY2005 and FY2006, and proposed
funding for FY2007.
Table 1. Final FY2005 and FY2006 LIHEAP Funding, and
Proposed FY2007 Funding
Regular
State formula
Set-asides
Contingencya
TOTAL
grants
($300,000 for technical
assistance, which is permanently
authorized in the statute)
Final FY2005 Appropriation
P.L. 108-447
$1.885
— $27.5 million —
$298 million
$2.182
billion
leveraging incentive
billion
(authorized by conference
report language)
Final FY2006 Appropriationb
P.L. 109-149
$1.98 billion
— $27.5 million —
$181 million
$2.161
leveraging incentive
billion
(authorized by conference
report language)
P.L. 109-204c
$500 million
None
$500 million
$1.0
billion
Total
$2.48 billion
— $27.5 million —
$681 million
$3.161
billion

---

CRS-5
Proposed FY2007
President’s
$1.782
— $27.225 million —
$0
1.782
Request
billion
leveraging incentive (this
billion
amount is assumed in
Administration budget
documents)
Source: Congressional Research Service based on P.L. 108-447, P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-149, P.L.
109-171, P.L. 109-204, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) FY2007 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.
a. Contingency funds appropriated in FY2005 received the formal budget designation of “emergency”
funds. For FY2006, only the Senate recommended this formal designation for $300 million of
its total funding.
b. Under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148), discretionary spending in
FY2006 was reduced by 1% through an across-the-board rescission. The amounts in P.L. 109-
149 include the rescission.
c. The funds made available for FY2006 in P.L. 109-204 were originally appropriated for FY2007 in
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, P.L. 109-171. Congress shifted the funds to FY2006 in P.L.
109-204.
LIHEAP Contingency Funds. On January 5, 2006, the Administration
released $100 million in contingency funds, its first distribution for FY2006. The
funds were disbursed to all states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories using
the regular block grant allocation, weighted by the percentage of low-income
households in each state that use natural gas, heating oil, and propane for heat. For
a breakdown of funds, see Table 5. In FY2005 the Administration released
contingency funds four times. On three occasions, December 23, 2004, January 31,
2005, and March 1, 2005, the Administration distributed a total of $250 million to
all states in response to 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. In early
September, the Administration released $27.25 million to states affected by
Hurricane Katrina. Alabama received $2 million, Florida received $1.5 million,
Louisiana received $12 million, and Mississippi received $11.5 million. The funds
may be used to pay for energy costs, the costs of transportation to shelters for those
whose health is endangered due to lack of access to cooling, utility reconnections,
and repairs to furnaces, insulation, and air conditioners. Approximately $20.75
million is remaining from the FY2005 contingency appropriation. P.L. 108-447
provides that these funds are “available until expended.” After the distribution of
funds on January 5, 2006, approximately $102 million in contingency funds remains
available for FY2006.

---

CRS-6
Table 2 shows recent federal funding levels for LIHEAP, including the amount
of contingency funds released.
Table 2. Recent LIHEAP Funding
(Dollars in millions; sums may not equal totals due to rounding)
Fiscal
Funds appropriated
Contingency funds
Total funds
year
distributeda
distributedb
Regularc
Contingency
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
27.25
277.25
2,135c
2,162c
2006d
2,480
681
100
—
100
2,080
2,080
Source: Tables prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The amount of contingency funds appropriated in a fiscal year may differ from the amount of
contingency funds that are distributed in that fiscal year for two reasons: First, the LIHEAP
statute gives the Administration discretion to release (or not release) any of the available
contingency funding. Further, these funds, as directed by the Congress in its appropriations
language, may be available for release in one or more years.
b. Regular funds, all of which are included in both of the Total Funds Distributed columns, include
all regular funding distributed by formula to the states, the tribes, and the District of Columbia,
as well as set-asides for the territories, leveraging incentive grants, REACH grants, and technical
assistance (with total set-asides of approximately $30 million). The “Subtotal to all states”
column includes all regular funds plus any contingency funds that were distributed to all states;
the “Total” column includes all regular funds plus any contingency funds that were distributed
to one or more states.
c. Regular LIHEAP funds are made available to states on a quarterly basis (October, January, April,
and July). However, states may specify what percentage of their total allotment they wish to
receive in each quarter, and many states receive all, or the great majority of, their LIHEAP funds
in the first two quarterly disbursements.
d. It is not clear whether the funds appropriated in P.L. 109-204 will be subject to the 1% rescission
in P.L. 109-148. As of March 22, 2006, HHS had not distributed the regular funds appropriated
in P.L. 109-204.
Energy Act Reauthorizes LIHEAP Through FY2007. The Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) reauthorized LIHEAP for FY2005-FY2007. The law was
signed by the President on August 8, 2005. With regard to LIHEAP, P.L. 109-58:
! sets 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 billion for FY2004);
! allows the Secretary of the Interior, when disposing of in-kind oil
and gas royalties taken from oil and gas leases, to grant a preference

---

CRS-7
for the purpose of providing additional resources to support federal
low-income energy assistance programs;
! authorizes state energy assistance offices, or those they contract
with, to provide LIHEAP assistance to purchase renewable fuels as
part of providing this aid;
! requires the Department of Energy to report to Congress on the use
of renewable fuels in providing aid under LIHEAP; and
! requires 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.”
LIHEAP Legislation in the 109th Congress. At least ten House and
Senate bills introduced in the 109th Congress would provide funding for LIHEAP by
increasing federal revenues from the oil and natural gas industries. The methods of
obtaining funds include imposing windfall profits taxes on the oil and/or natural gas
industries, suspending oil and natural gas royalty relief, repealing tax subsidies to the
oil and gas industries, and imposing fines and penalties on those companies and
individuals who participate in price gouging in the sale of fuels.8 Another bill, H.R.
4318, would allow federal funds to be used for natural gas leasing on the outer
continental shelf, with a portion of royalty proceeds to fund LIHEAP. As of March
2006, each of these eleven bills remains in committee.
Two bills introduced in the House propose to amend certain aspects of LIHEAP.
H.R. 1210, introduced by Representative Anthony Weiner, seeks to expand access
to the program for seniors by raising the maximum federal income eligibility limit
to 100% of the state median income — provided that at least 50% of that household’s
income was attributable to an individual aged 65 or older. (Current law sets the
maximum federal income eligibility for households at 60% of the state median
income, or 150% of the federal poverty level, whichever is greater.) H.R. 108,
introduced by Representative Gene Green, would mandate that no more than 50% of
the funding provided under LIHEAP could be made available for heating purposes.
Both bills were referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education
and the Workforce.
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.
8 Among those bills introduced are H.R. 3664, H.R. 3710, H.R. 3936, H.R. 4248, H.R.4263,
H.R. 4276, H.R. 4420, H.R. 4449, H.R. 4479, and S. 1981.

---

CRS-8
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility. Federal law
limits LIHEAP eligibility to households with incomes up to 150% of the federal
poverty income guidelines (or, if greater, 60% of the state median income). States
may adopt lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the
poverty guidelines may be considered ineligible. States may separately choose to
make eligible for LIHEAP assistance any household of which at least one member
is a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), Food Stamps, or certain needs-tested veterans’ 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.9
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available. Funds are available for four types
of energy assistance to eligible households:
! help paying heating or cooling bills;
! low-cost weatherization projects (e.g., window replacement or other
home-energy related repair; limited to 15% of allotment unless a
grantee has a waiver for up to 25%);
! services to reduce need for energy assistance (e.g., needs assessment,
counseling on how to reduce energy consumption; limited to 5% of
allotment); and
! help with energy-related emergencies (winter or summer crisis aid).
Use of Funds. The majority of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home
heating costs. In FY2003 approximately 72% of all LIHEAP funds were used to
provide heating assistance or crisis aid related primarily to heating needs; all states
(including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance, and nearly all
also offered crisis aid related to heating needs. In that same year, 3.5% of funds were
used for cooling/summer crisis aid; just 15 states offered cooling assistance and only
six offered summer crisis aid. Also in FY2003 10.5% of total LIHEAP funds were
used for weatherization services (provided by 46 states); 8.2% of available funds
were used for administration and planning purposes (51 states), and 1% of the
9 Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[http://www.liheap.ncat.org/sp.htm].

---

CRS-9
FY2003 funds were used to offer services to reduce the need for energy assistance
(provided by 21 states).10
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 3 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 FY2003 approximately 4.4 million households received
assistance with heating payments; 493,694 received cooling aid; approximately 1.1
million received winter/year-round crisis aid; 71,360 received summer crisis aid; and
111,000 received weatherization assistance. Because 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 4.8 million households received heating assistance or heat-related crisis aid in
FY2003.11
The Census Bureau’s 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement indicates
that among all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance, about 36% had at
least one member 60 years of age or older; about 48% had at least one disabled
member; and some 23% included at least one child five 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 12% received
TANF; 24% received SSI; and 26% lived in rent-subsidized or public housing.12
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
LIHEAP heating/winter crisis benefit was $291 (compared to $364 in FY2001), and
in FY2003, it rose to $312. The average cooling benefit, which is available to a more
limited number of households in far fewer states, had largely risen, until FY2002,
when it fell sharply. In FY2003 the average cooling aid benefit was $148, compared
to $136 in FY2002, and down from $219 in FY2001 and $228 in FY2000.13
10 Based on state-reported total LIHEAP expenditures for FY2003 (including federal and any
supplemental non-federal funding) of $2.112 billion. LIHEAP Report to Congress for
FY2003, p. 14.
11 LIHEAP Report to Congress for FY2003, p. 19.
12 Ibid., pp. 19-21.
13 Ibid., pp. 21-22. The combined average cooling/summer crisis benefit level for FY2003
was $163, up from $145 in 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, $107 in both FY2000 and FY2001, $70 in FY2002,
and approximately $80 in FY2003.

---

CRS-10
Table 3. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years

Fiscal year
1983
1990
1993
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Households
Number receiving
6.8
5.8
5.6
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.8
4.4
4.8
aid (in millions)
Number federally
22.2
25.4
28.4
29.1
29.0
29.4
30.4
32.7
34.5
eligible (in millions)
Federally eligible
31%
23%
20%
13%
12%
13%
16%
13%
14%
and receiving aid
Benefit Levels
Average benefit
$225
$209
$201
$213
$237
$270
$364
$291
$312
(nominal dollars)
Average benefit
$209
$147
$129
$117
$128
$140
$187
$147
$154
(constant 1981
dollars)a
Costs Offset
Portion of winter
18%
15%
11%
9%
9%
11%
14%
12%
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%
3.4%
3.3%
3.3%
4.7%
3.6%
4.9%
required for home
heating (for
After receiving LIHEAP benefit
LIHEAP-recipient
households)
2.6%
2.0%
2.4%
1.3%
1.1%
1.0%
1.7%
1.3%
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, FY2002 and FY2003.
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. FY2003 data for these trends are not yet available.
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. LIHEAP
recipient households also 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 1.3% of their total income for heating in
FY2002 compared to 2.6% in FY1983. (See Table 3.)

---

CRS-11
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.14 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 that leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance programs.
Regular Funds. Regular funds are distributed to states according to a three-
tier formula in the LIHEAP statute and based on the level of funds appropriated in
a given fiscal year.15 The three-tier formula is the result of changes to the LIHEAP
statute in 1984 through the Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558). Prior
to the changes in P.L. 98-558, LIHEAP allotments to the states were based largely
on home heating needs with minimal consideration of cooling costs, and did not
provide for the use of updated data, including population and energy costs.16
The new distribution formula provides that in determining state allotments the
Department of Health and Human Services shall use “the most recent satisfactory
data available” and consider home energy costs of low-income households (not
simply all households, as was previously the case). These changes to the calculation
of state allotments mean that some states will receive a smaller percentage share of
regular funds, while some will receive a larger share. In order to offset the losses to
certain states resulting from the formula change, and “prevent severe disruption to
14 See also CRS Report RS20761, LIHEAP and Residential Energy Costs, by Bernard Gelb.
15 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.
16 For more information on the history of the LIHEAP formula, see CRS Report RL33275,
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Allocation Rates: Legislative
History and Current Law, by Julie Whittaker and Libby Perl.

---

CRS-12
programs,”17 Congress implemented two “hold harmless” provisions in P.L. 98-558
to prevent states from losing too much funding. This resulted in the three-tier current
law formula, which is described in more detail below.18
Tier I. The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP
regular fund appropriation is less than $1.975 billion. Neither hold harmless
provision applies at the Tier I level, and HHS allocates funds according to the
allotment percentages used under the pre-1984 formula. The old formula is used
because the amount of appropriated funds required to trigger the new formula is
$1.975 billion. The LIHEAP statute stipulates that for FY1986 and succeeding years,
no state shall receive less money than it would have received in FY1984 had the
LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion.19 According to HHS, then, the
LIHEAP statute requires use of the old allotment percentages when funding is less
than $1.975 billion.20 Funding levels for LIHEAP have only twice exceeded the
$1.975 billion level, in FY1985 and FY1986. Thus, since 1987, states have
continued to receive the same allotment percentages they received under the previous
LIHEAP formula.
Tier II. For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion, the Tier
II rate applies, and HHS uses the formula enacted in 1984 to calculate state
allotments. Under the Tier II formula, a hold harmless level applies, and no state may
receive less funding than it would have received under the Tier I distribution rate as
it was in effect for FY1984, assuming a $1.975 billion appropriation.21 State
allotment percentages may be different, however. To ensure that states receive their
hold harmless levels of funding, those states that gain the most funding under the
new formula must have their percentage share of funds ratably reduced to bring other
states up to the hold harmless level.22
17 Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2), to
accompany H.R. 2439, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
18 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): Formula and Estimated Allocation Rates, by Julie
Whittaker and Libby Perl.
19 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A) (2003).
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Report to Congress for FY1987, p. 133. The statutory provision that provides
for use of the old formula is 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3) (2003).
21 Since this language was enacted, Congress further provided that HHS could use regular
LIHEAP funds appropriations for Training and Technical Assistance (P.L. 99-425). It also
authorized Leveraging Incentive Grants (P.L. 101-501) and the REACH option (P.L. 103-
252) — both of which it generally funds out of regular LIHEAP funds. These debits on the
regular funds account were not in place for FY1984. Because they affect the level of regular
funds available for state grant allotments by a little more than $25 million, it is possible but
not certain that HHS would not implement the newer formula before a regular funds
appropriation level of approximately $2.0028 billion.
22 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(3) (2003).

---

CRS-13
Tier III. The Tier III formula applies to funding levels at or above $2.25 billion.
The Tier III rate uses the Tier II methodology to distribute funds, but adds a second
hold-harmless requirement, a hold harmless rate. States that would receive less than
1% of a $2.25 billion appropriation must have their funds allocated using the rate that
would have been used at a hypothetical $2.14 billion appropriation (if this rate is
greater than the calculated rate at $2.25 billion). In both the Tier II and Tier III rates,
a state will not be allocated less funds than the state received under the Tier I
distribution as it was in effect in FY1984 (had the appropriation level been $1.975
billion).
Contingency Funds. The statute currently provides an annual authorization
of $600 million for LIHEAP contingency funds (contingency funds are authorized
indefinitely).23 Appropriated contingency funds may only be released at the
discretion of HHS and may be allocated to one or more states based on their needs.
The statute authorizes the appropriation of contingency funds “to meet the additional
home energy assistance needs of one or more States arising from a natural disaster
or other emergency.” The term “emergency” is defined in the LIHEAP statute to
include a natural disaster; a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption;
significant increases in the cost of home energy, home energy disconnections,
participation in public benefit programs, or unemployment; or an “event meeting
such criteria as the [HHS] Secretary may determine to be appropriate.”
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds. In 1990, P.L. 101-501 amended
the program statute to provide a separate funding authorization of $50 million ($30
million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for incentive grants to
states that leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP programs.24 Such
resources might include negotiated lower energy rates for low-income households or
separate state funds. States are awarded incentive funds in a given fiscal year based
on a formula that takes into account their previous fiscal year success in securing
non-federal resources for their energy assistance program. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) the
statute was further amended to provide that of any incentive funds appropriated, up
to 25% may be set aside for the Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option
(REACH). Under the REACH option states may be awarded competitive grants for
their efforts to increase efficiency of energy usage among low-income families and
to reduce those families’ vulnerability to homelessness and other health and safety
risks due to high energy costs. The funding authorization for Leveraging Incentive
and REACH grants is separate from regular funds, and the programs were not
reauthorized in P.L. 109-58. In practice, however, Congress has funded these
initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set-aside out of annual regular
fund appropriations.
Other Funds. States are allowed to carry over unused funds from a previous
fiscal year (limited to 10% of funds awarded a state). A diminishing amount of
money may also be available from previously settled claims of price control violation
23 42 U.S.C. §8621(e) (2003).
24 42 U.S.C. §8621(d) (2003).

---

CRS-14
by oil companies.25 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
seven times. The legislation and some of the significant changes made are briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs.
In 1984, P.L. 98-558, established a new formula by which regular LIHEAP
funds are to be distributed in every year (after FY1985) in which regular
appropriations exceed $1.975 billion. This level of funding was exceeded in FY1986
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.
Finally, in 2005 the Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) reauthorized the program
and raised the LIHEAP regular funds authorization level to $5.1 billion. It also
explicitly permitted the purchase of renewable fuels as part of providing LIHEAP
assistance; required the Department of Energy to report on use of renewable fuels in
provision of LIHEAP aid; required HHS to report (within one year of the
legislation’s enactment) on ways that the program could more effectively prevent loss
of life due to extreme temperatures; and allowed the Secretary of the Interior, when
disposing of in-kind oil and gas royalties taken from oil and gas leases, to grant a
preference for the purpose of providing additional resources to support federal low-
income energy assistance programs.
25 LIHEAP Report to Congress, FY2003, p. 11. For FY2002, $3.3 million in oil overcharge
funds was available to two states.

---

CRS-15
Issues
LIHEAP Formula. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires HHS to report to
Congress on how LIHEAP “could be used more effectively to prevent loss of life
from extreme temperatures.” Neither the act nor the conference report directs how
HHS should fulfill this requirement. 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; and include annually updated, state-level heating and
cooling degree day and fuel price information.26
Table 4. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2003 to FY2006
(Dollars in millions)
TOTAL funds distributeda
Regular
Contingency
State
(regular and contingency)
allotmentb
distributedc
TOTAL
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Alabama
16.1
15.4
19.9
16.664
0.658
17.321
Alaska 7.8
7.5
10.1
7.440
0.394
7.834
Arizona
7.2
6.9
7.7
7.448
0.236
7.684
Arkansas
12.3
11.8
13.5
12.796
0.571
13.367
California 86.1
82.4
91.7
89.287
4.409
93.696
Colorado
30.2
28.9
32.4
31.342
1.674
33.017
Connecticut
43.8
40.2
46.8
40.920
2.304
43.224
Delaware
5.8
5.3
6.2
5.431
0.272
5.703
District of Columbia
6.3
6.2
6.7
6.355
0.314
6.668
Florida
25.9
24.5
29.6
26.527
0.256
26.783
Georgia
20.3
19.4
22.5
20.979
0.856
21.835
Hawaii
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.113
0.012
2.125
Idaho
11.8
11.1
12.2
11.642
0.382
12.024
Illinois
109.6
104.5
117.2
113.259
6.560 119.819
Indiana
50.2
47.3
53.9
51.274
2.652
53.926
Iowa
35.5
33.5
38.9
36.343
2.040
38.384
Kansas
16.1
15.4
17.4
16.678
0.923
17.601
Kentucky
26.1
24.6
28.1
26.686
0.972
27.659
Louisiana 16.5
15.8
29.8
17.144
0.661
17.805
Maine
28.6
25.1
30.6
25.541
1.540
27.080
Maryland
32.1
30.8
34.2
31.332
1.512
32.844
26 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.

---

CRS-16
TOTAL funds distributeda
Regular
Contingency
State
(regular and contingency)
allotmentb
distributedc
TOTAL
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
Massachusetts
86.1
80.4
91.9
81.820
4.655
86.475
Michigan
104.9
105.0
112.5
106.792
6.650 113.442
Minnesota
77.5
71.5
84.0
77.469
4.241
81.710
Mississippi
13.8
13.2
27.4
14.350
0.622
14.972
Missouri
43.8
41.7
48.1
45.240
2.184
47.424
Montana
11.9
11.2
12.8
12.178
0.595 12.7730
Nebraska
17.4
16.6
19.0
17.970
0.980
18.950
Nevada
3.7
3.5
4.0
3.809
0.135
3.944
New Hampshire
16.9
15.2
18.3
15.493
0.913
16.406
New Jersey
78.7
74.5
83.9
75.798
4.518
80.316
New Mexico
9.1
8.7
9.9
9.392
0.524
9.916
New York
260.1
243.4
277.9
247.980
14.984 262.964
North Carolina
37.5
33.6
40.6
36.319
1.253
37.571
North Dakota
12.6
12.4
14.0
12.174
0.535
12.709
Ohio
98.1
98.4
104.7
100.195
5.436 105.630
Oklahoma
13.6
13.0
14.7
14.008
0.693
14.701
Oregon
23.8
21.8
25.0
23.880
0.516
24.396
Pennsylvania
136.7
130.9
145.5
133.273
7.653 140.926
Rhode Island
14.2
13.2
15.1
13.435
0.842
14.277
South Carolina
13.4
12.3
14.6
13.318
0.412
13.730
South Dakota
10.4
9.6
11.6
10.410
0.517
10.928
Tennessee
26.4
24.9
28.3
27.033
0.776
27.809
Texas
42.5
40.7
46.2
44.144
1.584
45.728
Utah
13.8
14.0
14.7
14.285
0.834
15.119
Vermont
12.6
11.4
13.8
11.613
0.680
12.293
Virginia
39.1
37.5
41.7
38.166
1.346
39.512
Washington
37.7
35.4
39.9
38.367
0.745
39.112
West Virginia
17.4
17.4
18.5
17.660
0.725
18.385
Wisconsin
69.5
64.3
75.3
69.733
3.875
73.608
Wyoming
5.5
5.2
5.9
5.626
0.291
5.917
Subtotal
$1,939
$1,840
$2,111
$1,929
$98.910
$2,028
Tribesd
19.3
19.0
20.1
20.702
0.954
21.656
Territoriese
2.5
2.5
2.9
2.644
0.135
2.779
Leveraging/REACHf
27.3
27.3
27.3
27.225
0.0
27.225
Training/Tech. Asst.g
0.3
0.3
0.3
.297
0.0
.297
TOTAL $1,988
$1,889
$2,162
$1,980
$100
$2,080
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 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

---

CRS-17
fuel costs — with a greater share of the funding awarded to 19 states, including the District of
Columbia, that also experienced extreme cold). In FY2005, the regular funds appropriation was
$1.885 billion, and HHS distributed $250 million to all states, and $27.25 million to four states
(Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi) after Hurricane Katrina.
b. Includes 1% rescission in P.L. 109-148. LIHEAP funds are released on a quarterly basis.
c. This column shows the amount of FY2006 contingency funds released. The total available
contingency funds includes $20.75 million in FY2005 contingency funds, and $183 million
appropriated in P.L. 109-149.
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).
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.
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2007
(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

---

CRS-18
Regular Fundsa
Contingency Fundsa
TOTAL
Distributed
Fiscal
President’s
year
request
Authorized
Appropriated
Appropriated
Distributed
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
5,100,000
1,884,799
297,600
277,250
2,162,050
2006
1,800,000g
5,100,000
2,480,000
681,000
100,000
2,080,000h
2007
1,782,000
5,100,000
—
—
—
—
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 requested that $500,000 be set aside for a national evaluation.
h. As of March 22, 2006, funds appropriated in P.L. 109-204 had not been distributed.
crsphpgw

---