Order Code RL31865
The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Updated October 11, 2007
Libby Perl
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

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, territories, and tribes annual grants to operate home energy assistance
programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of
funds: regular funds, which are allocated to all states using a statutory formula, and
contingency funds, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the
Administration.
For FY2007, Congress appropriated $1.98 billion for regular funds and $181
million for contingency funds (P.L. 110-5), the same amount appropriated in the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations
Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-149). The President’s budget request for FY2008 is
$1.782 billion, of which $1.5 billion would be for regular funds and $282 million for
contingency funds. This is the same amount of funds that the President requested for
FY2007; however, the entire amount in the FY2007 request would have gone to
regular funds. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education have proposed $1.98 billion in regular
funds for FY2008. However, the House has proposed $682 million in contingency
funds, while the Senate would maintain the same level as FY2007 — $181 million.
Congress proposed to add funds to LIHEAP in three FY2007 supplemental
appropriations bills, each entitled the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina
Recovery and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. The first bill (H.R. 1591)
would have added a total of $400 million to LIHEAP, $200 million for regular funds
and $200 million for contingency funds. Prior to conference with the House, the
Senate’s version of the first supplemental (S. 965) would have added $640 million
for LIHEAP, $320 million for regular funds and $320 million for contingency funds.
The first supplemental was vetoed by the President on May 1, 2007, and the House
failed to override the veto. On May 8, 2007, a second supplemental appropriations
bill (H.R. 2206) was introduced. Like H.R. 1591, it contained $400 million for
LIHEAP, with the same breakdown between regular and contingency funds.
However, on May 23, 2007, Congress removed the LIHEAP funds from the bill.
On August 29, 2007, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
released $50 million in FY2007 contingency funds to twelve states due to severe
heat. These states were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
On September 27, 2007, HHS released the remainder of the FY2007 contingency
funds — $131 million. Of the $131 million, $106 million went to all states, tribes,
and territories for anticipated winter heating costs, while the remaining $25 million
went to seven states based on heating oil usage and average 2006-2007 winter
temperature. These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. (For the amount of contingency funds
distributed to each state, see Table 4.) Approximately $21 million in FY2005
contingency funds remain available until expended.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2008 Proposed LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2007 LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
LIHEAP Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
LIHEAP Legislation in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Report to Congress on Preventing Loss of Life Because of
Extreme Indoor Air Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Program Rules and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Use of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Households Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Benefit Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funds and Their Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Regular Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Tier I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Tier II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Tier III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Contingency Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Other Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Final FY2006 and FY2007 LIHEAP Funding and
Proposed FY2008 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Recent LIHEAP Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid, Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2004 to FY2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. The LIHEAP statute provides for
two types of program funding: regular funds and contingency funds. Regular funds
are allotted to states according to methods prescribed by the LIHEAP statute.1 The
second type of LIHEAP funding, called contingency funds, may be released and
allotted to one or more states at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
The first section of this report describes appropriations of LIHEAP funds for
FY2007 and proposed funding for FY2008. It also discusses current issues and
legislation related to LIHEAP. The second section of this report discusses LIHEAP
rules, including household eligibility and how funds may be used, and presents the
most recent data available from HHS regarding household characteristics and benefit
levels. Finally, the third section discusses how each category of LIHEAP funds is
distributed to states, as well as a breakdown of funds to the states during the last
several fiscal years.
Recent Developments
FY2008 Proposed LIHEAP Funding
The President released his FY2008 budget on February 5, 2007. In it, he
proposed to provide $1.782 billion for LIHEAP. This is the same amount the
President proposed for FY2007, but the breakdown of funds is different. In FY2007,
the Administration’s budget requested that the entire amount be allocated to regular
funds, while for FY2008, $1.5 billion would be allocated to regular funds and $282
million to contingency funds.
In the House, the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education marked up the FY2008 appropriations bill on
1 See Section 2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of
P.L. 97-35), as amended. The section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)-(d).

---

CRS-2
June 7, 2007. (As of the date of this report, the bill does not have a number.) The
House bill would provide $1.98 billion in regular funds, the same level appropriated
in FY2007, and approximately $682 million in contingency funds, an increase of
$500 million over the FY2007 level. The Senate’s version of the appropriations bill
(S. 1710) would maintain FY2008 LIHEAP regular and contingency funds at their
FY2007 levels of $1.98 billion and $181 million respectively. (For information on
how regular funds would be distributed to the states under the President’s proposal
and the Appropriations Committees proposals, see CRS Report RS21605, LIHEAP:
Estimated Allocations, by Libby Perl.)
FY2007 LIHEAP Funding
For FY2007, Congress appropriated $1.98 billion in regular funds and $181
million in contingency funds for LIHEAP through a year-long continuing resolution
(P.L. 110-5). This is the same amount that was appropriated for LIHEAP in the
FY2006 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) as reduced by a 1% across-the-board rescission
(P.L. 109-148). The total amount appropriated in FY2007 exceeded the President’s
budget request of $1.782 billion by $380 million. Prior to the enactment of the year-
long continuing resolution, the House Appropriations Committee would have
provided $1.93 billion in regular LIHEAP funds and $181 million in contingency
funds in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act (H.R. 5647). The Senate Appropriations Committee would have
provided $1.98 billion in regular LIHEAP funds and $181 million in contingency
funds in its version of the spending bill (S. 3708). Prior to enactment of P.L. 110-5
on February 15, 2007, three continuing resolutions provided funding for LIHEAP.2
Three FY2007 supplemental appropriations bills, each entitled the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, attempted to provide additional funds for LIHEAP. The first bill
(H.R. 1591), introduced on March 20, 2007, would have provided $400 million for
LIHEAP, $200 million for regular funds and $200 million for contingency funds.
The Senate’s version of the supplemental appropriations bill (S. 965), introduced on
March 22, 2006, would have provided $640 million for LIHEAP, $320 million in
regular funds and $320 million in contingency funds. However, in conference with
the House, the LIHEAP provisions in H.R. 1591 prevailed. On May 1, 2007, the
President vetoed H.R. 1591, and the House failed to override the veto. On May 8,
2007, another supplemental appropriations bill was introduced in the House (H.R.
2206). Like H.R. 1591, it would have provided $400 million for LIHEAP, dividing
the amount equally between regular and contingency funds. However, on May 24,
funds for LIHEAP were removed from H.R. 2206 in conference with the Senate.
2 These were P.L. 109-289, P.L. 109-369, and P.L. 109-383.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Final FY2006 and FY2007 LIHEAP Funding and
Proposed FY2008 Funding
Regular
State
Set-Asides
($300,000 for technical
Contingency
Total
Formula
assistance, which is permanently
Grants
authorized in the statute)
Final FY2006 Appropriationa
— 27.225 million —
P.L. 109-149
1.98 billion
181 million
2.161 billion
leveraging incentive fund
P.L. 109-204b
500 million
None
500 million
1.0 billion
— 27.225 million —
Total 2.48
billion
681 million
3.161 billion
leveraging incentive fund
Final FY2007 Appropriation
— 27.225 million —
P.L. 110-5
1.98 billion
181 million
2.161 billion
leveraging incentive fund
FY2008 Proposed Funding
President’s
— 27.225 million —
1.50 billion
282 million
1.782 billion
Request
leveraging incentive fund
House
Appropriations
1.98 billion
Not specified
682 million
2.662 billion
Subcommittee
S. 1710
1.98 billion
Not specified
181 million
2.161 billion
Source: Congressional Research Service on the basis of P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-149, P.L. 109-171,
P.L. 109-204, P.L. 110-5, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) FY2008 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,
House Appropriations Subcommittee Table, and S. 1710.
a. 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.
b. 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
In FY2007, Congress appropriated $181 million in LIHEAP contingency funds
to be released at the discretion of HHS to states according to their energy needs. In
addition, just under $21 million in contingency funds from the FY2005
appropriations law (P.L. 108-447) remain available until expended. HHS distributed
FY2007 contingency funds on two occasions.
First, on August 29, 2007, HHS announced that it would release $50 million in
contingency funds to twelve states that experienced severe heat during the month of
August. These twelve states were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and
Tennessee. The distribution was based on two factors involving cooling degree days.
A cooling degree day measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature rises

---

CRS-4
above 65°F. For example, a day with an average temperature of 80° F results in a
measure of 15 cooling degree days. States qualified for contingency funds if they
experienced at least 341 cooling degree days during the three-week period ending
August 25, 2007, and if they experienced 61 or more excess cooling degree days
compared to their 30-year norm for the same time period. Fund distributions were
weighted on the basis of the number of low-income households in each state.
The remaining $131 million in contingency funds was released on September
27, 2007. Of the $131 million, just over $106 million went to all states, tribes, and
territories for anticipated winter heating needs. The funds were allocated based on
each state’s share of block grant funds. The remaining $25 million was allocated to
seven states according to the percentage of low-income households that use heating
oil and according to average temperature. States qualified if at least 30% of low-
income households use heating oil and if the average temperature between October
1, 2006, and March 31, 2007 was at or below 47° F. The seven states that received
funds were Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont. (See Table 4 at the end of this report for the total amount of
contingency funds allocated to each state.)
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)
Funds
Contingency Funds
Total Funds
Appropriated
Distributeda
Distributedb
Fiscal
Year
To
Subtotal
To All
Regularc
Contingency
Some
Subtotal
(to all
Total
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
277
2,135
2,162
2006
2,480
681
100
580
680
2,580
3,160
2007
1,980
181
106
75
181
2,086
2,161
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

---

CRS-5
receive in each quarter, and many states receive all, or the great majority of, their LIHEAP funds
in the first two quarterly disbursements.
LIHEAP Legislation in the 110th Congress
Bills that address aspects of LIHEAP have been introduced in the 110th
Congress.
! The LIHEAP Equity Act of 2007 (H.R. 153), would mandate that no
more than 50% of the funding provided under LIHEAP be made
available for heating purposes.
! S. 669, the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act, concerns contingency
funds. The bill would allow a state governor to apply to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services for certification that there
is an emergency in his or her state (as defined by the LIHEAP
statute), and for an allotment of contingency funds in response to the
emergency.
! The Home Energy Assistance Targeted for Seniors Act (H.R. 2984)
would rename LIHEAP the “Low Income and Senior Home Energy
Assistance Act” and make eligible for benefits households with
incomes at or below state median income, as long as at least 50% of
the household’s income was attributable to persons age 65 and older.
(Currently households may not have incomes above 60% of state
median income and still be eligible for LIHEAP.)
! The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (H.R. 1252) would make
it illegal to charge excessive prices for various types of fuel if an
“energy emergency” is declared by the President. The illegal
practices would include selling oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum at unconscionably excessive prices; intentionally
reporting false price information; or manipulating the market.
Penalties imposed for violations of these provisions would be used
to provide LIHEAP assistance. On May 23, 2007, the bill bypassed
committee consideration and went straight to the House floor, where
it passed under suspension of the rules.
! Two other bills would similarly use penalties imposed on energy
providers to fund LIHEAP. The Federal Energy Price Protection Act
(H.R. 2460) would penalize oil, gas, and petroleum suppliers for
price gouging with the fees going to LIHEAP, while the Clean,
Reliable, Efficient and Secure Energy Act of 2007 (S. 1602) would
give a portion of penalties collected from energy suppliers to
LIHEAP.
! The Low Carbon Economy Act (S. 1766) would set greenhouse gas
emissions targets for entities such as natural gas processing plants,
electric power plants, and refineries. Under the program, these
regulated entities would trade allowances that entitle them to emit a

---

CRS-6
certain amount of greenhouse gases. A portion of the proceeds from
the auction of these allowances would be allocated to fund LIHEAP.
! Another bill, the Energy Security and Corporate Accountability Act
(S. 1238) would not affect LIHEAP, but would create a program for
LIHEAP-eligible households called the Low-Income Transportation
Energy Assistance Fund.
Report to Congress on Preventing Loss of Life
Because of Extreme Indoor Air Temperatures
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) required HHS to report to
Congress on how LIHEAP “could be used more effectively to prevent loss of life
from extreme temperatures.” On February 15, 2007, HHS released a report in which
it summarized state recommendations for ways to use LIHEAP funds to prevent heat-
and cold-related deaths due to indoor air temperature.3 Recommendations were in
five categories:
! Education and outreach;
! Weatherization and energy-related home repairs;
! Special assistance for vulnerable populations;
! Partnerships with other social services programs and energy
providers; and
! Research on the needs of, and best practices for helping, vulnerable
households.
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 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
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress on: Preventing Loss of
Life Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures, February 15, 2007.

---

CRS-7
veterans’ programs. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under
other aid programs.
Within these limits, grantees decide which, if any, assistance categories to
include, what income limits to use, and whether to impose other eligibility tests. The
statute gives priority for aid to households with the greatest energy needs or cost
burdens, especially those that include disabled individuals, frail older individuals, or
young children. Federal standards require grantees to treat owners and renters
“equitably,” to adjust benefits for household income and home energy costs, and to
have a system of “crisis intervention” assistance for those in immediate need. The
LIHEAP definition of “energy crisis” leaves room for each state to define the term
slightly differently, although generally, crisis assistance is provided to households
that are in danger of losing their heating or cooling due to problems with equipment,
receipt of a utility shutoff notice, or exhaustion of a fuel supply.4 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.5
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
FY2004, the most recent year for which data regarding total obligations are available,
approximately 55.4% of all LIHEAP funds were used to provide heating assistance;
all states (including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance.6
4 The LIHEAP statute defines an energy crisis as “weather-related and supply shortage
emergencies and other household energy-related emergencies.” 42 U.S.C. §8622(3). For
the state definitions of “crisis” see the HHS LIHEAP Networker FY2007 compilation of
definitions, available at [http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2007/CrisisDef2007.doc].
5 Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at
[http://www.liheap.ncat.org/sp.htm].
6 Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2004 (including federal and any
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
Nearly all states also offered crisis assistance, most of which is used for heating
needs. In FY2004, 16.5% of LIHEAP funds were used to provide crisis assistance
in 46 states. Five of these 46 states provided summer as well as winter crisis
assistance, and one state — Hawaii — provided only summer crisis assistance.7 Also
in FY2004, 2.9% of funds were used for cooling aid (offered by 13 states); 11.3% of
total LIHEAP funds were used for weatherization services (provided by 45 states);
8.7% of available funds were used for administration and planning purposes (51
states), and 1% of the FY2004 funds were used to offer services to reduce the need
for energy assistance (provided by 22 states).8
Households Served
When the LIHEAP program began in FY1983, approximately 6.8 million
households received heating or winter crisis assistance (or both), representing 31%
of federally eligible households. Since that time, the number of households receiving
assistance declined generally until FY2000, reaching a low of 3.6 million recipients
in FY1999. After FY2000, the number of recipient households began increasing
again. In FY2005, the most recent year for which information related to the broad
heating and cooling categories is available, it is estimated that 5.3 million households
received this LIHEAP assistance.9 (See Table 3.) The same trend can be seen in the
percentage of federally eligible households that receive funds. By FY1999, the
number of federally eligible households receiving LIHEAP heating or winter crisis
assistance had dropped from 31% to 12%. In FY2005, 15% of federally eligible
households received assistance. The number of households receiving cooling
assistance reached its high point in FY2002, with more than half a million recipients.
In FY2005, approximately 400,000 households received cooling or summer crisis
assistance.10
The most recently available information that further breaks down the number
of households assisted by the type of assistance they received comes from FY2004,
a year in which 5.0 million households were estimated to have received LIHEAP
heating or winter crisis assistance, and 400,000 to have received cooling or summer
crisis aid. (Because many households may receive more than one kind of LIHEAP
assistance, some households may be represented in more than one category.) States
reported that approximately 4.6 million households received assistance with heating
payments; 308,000 received cooling aid; approximately 1.1 million received winter
6 (...continued)
supplemental non-federal funding) of $1.949 billion. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2004, May 25, 2007, p. 14 (hereafter FY2004
LIHEAP Report to Congress).
7 Ibid., Table C-3, p. 55.
8 Ibid., p. 14.
9 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
FY2005 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, May 2007, p 28 (hereafter FY2005 LIHEAP
Home Energy Notebook).
10 Ibid., p. 29.

---

CRS-9
or year-round crisis aid; 88,000 received summer crisis aid; and 112,000 received
weatherization assistance.11
HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance,
about 32% had at least one member 60 years of age or older; about 32% had at least
one disabled member; and some 22% included at least one child five years of age or
younger.12
Benefit Levels
The constant dollar value of LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefits has
declined, generally, from the program’s beginning, as has the portion of home heating
bills covered by LIHEAP. In FY1983, the average heating and winter crisis benefit,
measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $209 dollars. By FY1998, it had declined to
$117, and although the value of benefits went up from FY1999 through FY2001, it
declined again thereafter, and in FY2005 the average constant dollar benefit was
$140.13 (See Table 3.) In addition, the LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefit
now covers a smaller portion of home heating bills than in earlier years, 8% in
FY2005 compared to 18% in FY1983.14
The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is
available to a more limited number of households in far fewer states, had largely
risen from the program’s beginning until FY2002. In FY1983, the constant dollar
value of LIHEAP cooling benefits (in 1981 dollars) was $57. By FY2000 and
FY2001, the average benefit had reached $107. However, by FY2004 and FY2005,
the average cooling or summer crisis benefit had declined to $91.15
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.16 These include the following:
! the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price
fluctuations and variation in kinds of fuels used);
! the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the
weather, energy efficiency of housing, and expected standards of
comfort); and
! the number of eligible households (influenced by population size
and health of the economy).
11 FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 18.
12 Ibid., pp. 20-21.
13 FY2005 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
14 Ibid., p. 31.
15 Ibid., p. 30.
16 See also CRS Report RS20761, LIHEAP and Residential Energy Costs, by Bernard Gelb.

---

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

Fiscal Year
1983 1990 1993 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Households
Number receiving aid ( millions)
6.8
5.8
5.6
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.8
4.4
4.8
5.0
5.3
Number federally eligible (millions)
22.2
25.4
28.4
29.1
29.0
29.4
30.4
32.7
34.5
35.4
34.8
Federally eligible and receiving aid
31%
23%
20%
13%
12%
13%
16%
13%
14%
14%
15%
Benefit Levels
Average benefit (nominal $)
$225 $209 $201 $213 $237 $270 $364 $291 $312 $277 $304
Average benefit (constant 1981 $)a
$209 $147 $129 $117 $128 $140 $187 $147 $154 $132 $140
Costs Offset
Portion of winter heating bill
covered by LIHEAP (for all
18%
15%
11%
9%
9%
11%
14%
12%
NAc
8%
8%
federally eligible households)b
Before receiving LIHEAP benefit
Portion of household income
8.3% 4.5% 4.7% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 4.7% 3.6% 4.9% 4.8% 5.6%
required for home heating (for
LIHEAP-recipient households)
After receiving LIHEAP benefit
2.6% 2.0% 2.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 1.7% 1.3% NAc 2.7% 3.3%
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, FY2003, FY2004 and FY2005.
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. HHS did not make FY2003 data for these trends available.
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. The statute also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for incentive
grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance
programs.
Regular Funds
Regular funds are distributed to states according to a three-tier formula in the
LIHEAP statute and based on the level of funds appropriated in a given fiscal year.17
17 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
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. (For more information on the
history of the LIHEAP formula, see CRS Report RL33275, LIHEAP Allocation
Rates: Legislative History and Current Law, by Libby Perl.)
The new distribution formula provides that in determining state allotments the
Department of Health and Human Services shall use “the most recent satisfactory
data available” and consider home energy costs of low-income households (not
simply all households, as was previously the case). These changes to the calculation
of state allotments mean that some states will receive a smaller percentage share of
regular funds, while some will receive a larger share. In order to offset the losses to
certain states resulting from the formula change, and “prevent severe disruption to
programs,”18 Congress implemented two “hold harmless” provisions in P.L. 98-558
to prevent states from losing too much funding. This resulted in the three-tier current
law formula, which is described in more detail below.
Tier I. The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP
regular fund appropriation is less than $1.975 billion. Neither hold harmless
provision applies at the Tier I level, and HHS allocates funds according to the
allotment percentages used under the pre-1984 formula. The old formula is used
because the amount of appropriated funds required to trigger the new formula is
$1.975 billion. The LIHEAP statute stipulates that for FY1986 and succeeding years,
no state shall receive less money than it would have received in FY1984 had the
LIHEAP funding in that year been $1.975 billion.19 According to HHS, then, the
LIHEAP statute requires use of the old allotment percentages when funding is less
than $1.975 billion.20 Until FY2006, funding levels for LIHEAP only twice exceeded
the $1.975 billion level, in FY1985 and FY1986. Thus, from FY1987 through
FY2005, states continued to receive the same allotment percentages they received
under the previous LIHEAP formula.
Tier II. For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion, the
Tier II rate applies, and HHS uses the formula enacted in 1984 to calculate state
allotments. Under the Tier II formula, a hold harmless level applies, and no state may
receive less funding than it would have received under the Tier I distribution rate as
17 (...continued)
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.
18 Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2), to
accompany H.R. 2439, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
19 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A).
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).

---

CRS-12
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
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
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).
23 42 U.S.C. §8621(e).

---

CRS-13
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 by oil
companies.25 In addition, the Social Services Block Grant program allows states to
transfer up to 10% of funds to provide low-income home energy assistance,26 while
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program gives states the discretion to
use funds for home heating and cooling costs.27
Legislative History
Since it was created by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981
(Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), the LIHEAP program has been reauthorized or amended
seven times. The legislation and some of the significant changes made are briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs.
In 1984, P.L. 98-558, established a new formula by which regular LIHEAP
funds are to be distributed in every year (after FY1985) in which regular
appropriations exceed $1.975 billion. This level of funding was exceeded in FY1986
and again in FY2006.
In 1986, P.L. 99-425 extended the program with few changes. In 1990, P.L.
101-501 created the Incentive Program for Leveraging Non-Federal Resources and
authorized a July to June program year (or forward funding) for LIHEAP to allow
24 42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
25 FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 11. For FY2004, $2 million in oil overcharge
funds was available to one state.
26 42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
27 42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).

---

CRS-14
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 for FY2005 through
FY2007 to $5.1 billion. It also explicitly permitted the purchase of renewable fuels
as part of providing LIHEAP assistance; required the Department of Energy to report
on use of renewable fuels in provision of LIHEAP aid; 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.

---

CRS-15
Table 4. LIHEAP Funding by State, FY2004 to FY2007
(dollars in millions)
Total Funds Distributeda
Regular
Contingency
Total
State
(Regular and Contingency)
Allotment Distributed
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Alabama
$15.4
$19.9
$31.787 $16.673
$5.404
$22.077
Alaska 7.5
10.1
12.839
7.418
1.213
8.631
Arizona
6.9
7.7
14.230 7.448
0.405
7.856
Arkansas
11.8
13.5
23.336 12.796
2.953
15.749
California 82.4
91.7
156.441
89.199
4.852
94.089
Colorado
28.9
32.4
44.806 31.334
1.706
33.073
Connecticut
40.2
46.8
71.106 40.920
7.182
48.102
Delaware
5.3
6.2
10.954 5.431
0.295
5.727
District of Columbia
6.2
6.7
8.165
6.355
0.346
6.700
Florida
24.5
29.6
49.785 26.527
1.442
27.970
Georgia
19.4
22.5
40.026 20.979
7.585
28.564
Hawaii
1.9
2.2
2.567 2.113
0.115
2.228
Idaho
11.1
12.2
14.055 11.642
0.633
12.275
Illinois
104.5
117.2
193.814 113.259
6.159
119.418
Indiana
47.3
53.9
75.327 51.272
2.788
54.062
Iowa
33.5
38.9
52.054 36.343
1.976
38.319
Kansas
15.4
17.4
27.709 16.675
3.053
19.727
Kentucky
24.6
28.1
45.320 26.686
5.324
32.010
Louisiana 15.8
29.8
32.671
17.144
5.355
22.499
Maine
25.1
30.6
43.496 25.541
6.946
32.487
Maryland
30.8
34.2
61.889 31.332
1.704
33.036
Massachusetts
80.4
91.9
126.425 81.820
11.937
93.757
Michigan
105.0
112.5
153.615 106.543
5.802
112.509
Minnesota
71.5
84.0
110.849 77.469
4.213
81.681
Mississippi
13.2
27.4
27.415 14.350
3.488
17.838
Missouri
41.7
48.1
78.220 45.240
7.405
52.645
Montana
11.2
12.8
19.259 11.843
0.644
12.487
Nebraska
16.6
19.0
28.634 17.961
0.977
18.940
Nevada
3.5
4.0
7.247 3.809
0.207
4.016
New Hampshire
15.2
18.3
27.740
15.493
3.276
18.769
New Jersey
74.5
83.9
114.759
75.798
4.122
79.920
New Mexico
8.7
9.9
11.555
9.358
0.509
9.867
New York
243.4
277.9
381.719
247.980
13.470
261.178
North Carolina
33.6
40.6
71.125
36.319
8.838
45.156
North Dakota
12.4
14.0
19.272
12.753
0.693
13.446
Ohio
98.4
104.7
164.226 100.195
5.448
105.643
Oklahoma
13.0
14.7
26.921 13.991
3.513
17.517
Oregon
21.8
25.0
24.575 23.614
1.291
25.035
Pennsylvania
130.9
145.5
202.324 133.273
7.247
140.520
Rhode Island
13.2
15.1
23.066
13.435
1.992
15.428
South Carolina
12.3
14.6
25.279
13.318
4.317
17.636
South Dakota
9.6
11.6
16.540
10.410
0.566
10.977

---

CRS-16
Total Funds Distributeda
Regular
Contingency
Total
State
(Regular and Contingency)
Allotment Distributed
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Tennessee
24.9
28.3
47.139 27.033
6.535
33.568
Texas
40.7
46.2
84.005 44.144
2.400
46.545
Utah
14.0
14.7
22.848 14.233
0.777
15.062
Vermont
11.4
13.8
20.903 11.613
2.549
14.162
Virginia
37.5
41.7
75.053 38.166
2.075
40.241
Washington
35.4
39.9
39.631 38.355
2.086
40.443
West Virginia
17.4
18.5
24.543
17.660
0.960
18.621
Wisconsin
64.3
75.3
99.837 69.773
3.792
73.525
Wyoming
5.2
5.9
8.987 5.558
0.306
5.932
Subtotal
$1,840
$2,111
$3,096
$1,929
$178.871 $2,107.659
Tribesb
19.0
20.1
32.897
21.046
2.155
23.201
Territoriesc
2.5
2.9
3.456
2.644
0.144
2.788
Leveraging/REACHd
27.3
27.3
27.225
27.225
—
27.225
Training/Tech. Asst.e
0.3
0.3
.297
.297
—
.297
Total
$1,889
$2,162
$3,160
$1,980
$181
$2,161
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.
b. 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.
c. 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).
d. 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.
e. The statute provides that HHS may reserve up to $300,000 for making grants or entering into
contracts with states, public agencies, or private nonprofits that provide training and technical
assistance related to achieving the purposes of the LIHEAP program.

---

CRS-17
Table 5. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2007
(dollars in thousands)
Regular Fundsa
Contingency Fundsa
Fiscal
Total
Year
President’s
Distributed
Authorized
Appropriated
Appropriated
Distributed
Request
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
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
679,960
3,160,000
2007
1,782,000
5,100,000
1,980,000
181,000
181,000
2,161,000
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).
g. Of this amount, the President requested that $500,000 be set aside for a national evaluation.
crsphpgw

---