.

The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and
Current Law
Libby Perl
Analyst in Housing Policy
May 11, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33275
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) provides funds to states, the
District of Columbia, U.S. territories and commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations
(collectively referred to as grantees) primarily to help low-income households pay home energy
expenses. The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of funding: regular funds (sometimes
referred to as block grant funds) and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allocated to
grantees based on a formula, while contingency funds may be released to one or more grantees at
the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services based on
emergency need.
Regular LIHEAP funds are allocated to the states according to a formula that has a long and
complicated history. (Tribes receive funds based on their number of federally eligible LIHEAP
households compared to the total number in the state, whereas territories receive a set percentage
of total LIHEAP regular funds.) In 1980, Congress created the predecessor program to LIHEAP,
the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits
Tax Act (P.L. 96-223). Because Congress was particularly concerned with the high costs of
heating, funds under LIEAP were distributed according to a multi-step formula that benefitted
cold-weather states. In 1981, Congress enacted LIHEAP as part of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), replacing LIEAP. However, the LIHEAP statute specified that
states would continue to receive the same percentage of regular funds that they did under the
LIEAP formula.
When Congress reauthorized LIHEAP in 1984 as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act
(P.L. 98-558), it changed the program’s formula by requiring the use of more recent population
and energy data and requiring that HHS consider both heating and cooling costs of low-income
households (a change from the focus on the heating needs of all households). The effect of these
changes meant that, in general, funds would be shifted from cold-weather states to warm-weather
states. To prevent a dramatic shift of funds, Congress added two “hold-harmless” provisions to
the formula. The result of these provisions is a current law, three-tiered formula (sometimes
referred to as the “new” formula), the application of which depends on the amount of regular
funds that Congress appropriates.
The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP regular fund appropriation is
less than or equal to the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
Above this level, funds are allocated according to Tier II of the formula, which includes a hold-
harmless level to prevent certain states from losing LIHEAP funds. Finally, Tier III applies to
appropriations at or above $2.25 billion, and includes a second hold-harmless provision, the hold-
harmless rate. Since FY1986, LIHEAP regular fund appropriations have exceeded the equivalent
of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion on three occasions: in FY2006, when the regular
fund appropriation was $2.48 billion; in FY2008, when appropriations slightly exceeded the
trigger; and in FY2009, when Congress directed that $840 million be distributed according to the
“new” LIHEAP formula.
This report will be updated when new formula data are released and when proposed funding
levels change (see Appendix C).

Congressional Research Service

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP ............................................................................................... 2
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs......................................... 2
Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) ................................................................ 5
The LIEAP Formula........................................................................................................ 6
Enactment of LIHEAP ................................................................................................................ 8
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula ................................................................................... 9
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula ............................................................ 9
Formula Discussions ....................................................................................................... 9
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level.......................................................................... 10
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate ........................................................................... 10
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language ........................................................................... 11
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments Using the “New” Formula............................... 12
Calculating the New Formula Rates .................................................................................... 12
Using the New Formula Rates to Allocate Funds to the States ............................................. 14
Tier I: Below $1.975 Billion.......................................................................................... 15
Tier II: From $1.975 Billion up to $2.25 Billion ............................................................ 15
Tier III: At or Above $2.25 Billion ................................................................................ 16
Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP Formula ................................................................. 17

Figures
Figure B-1. Estimated Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) Allocations at
Various Hypothetical Appropriations Level for Three Types of States ..................................... 27

Tables
Table 1. Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980 .................................................... 4
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP............................................................................... 8
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP): “Old” and “New” Allotment
Rates by State, 2009............................................................................................................... 17
Table 4. Recent State Allotment Rates Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula ............................... 20
Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds at Various
Hypothetical Appropriation Levels ......................................................................................... 23
Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allotments for FY2006 through FY2009
and Estimated FY2010 Allotments ......................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Appendixes
Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States Under Various Hypothetical
Appropriation Levels ............................................................................................................. 22
Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation
Levels .................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix C. Actual LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments to the States, FY2006-FY2009,
and Estimated FY2010 Allotments ......................................................................................... 28

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Introduction
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a block grant program
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under which the federal
government gives annual grants to states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and
commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations to operate multi-component home energy
assistance programs for needy households.1 Established in 1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35, the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, LIHEAP has been reauthorized and amended a number of
times, most recently in 2005, when P.L. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act, authorized annual regular
LIHEAP funds at $5.1 billion per year from FY2005 through FY2007.2
The federal LIHEAP statute has very broad guidelines, with almost all decisions regarding the
program’s operation made by the states. Recipients may be helped with their heating and cooling
costs, receive crisis assistance, have weatherizing expenses paid, or receive other aid designed to
reduce their home energy needs. Households with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty
income guidelines or, if greater, 60% of the state median income, are federally eligible for
LIHEAP benefits. States may adopt lower income limits, but no household with income below
110% of the poverty guidelines may be considered ineligible. The most current HHS data show
that an estimated 5.5 million households received winter heating or winter crisis assistance in
FY2006 (the largest share of LIHEAP funds pay for heating assistance).3
The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of program funding: regular funds—sometimes
referred to as block grant funds—and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allotted to
states on the basis of the LIHEAP statutory formula, which was enacted as part of the Human
Services Reauthorization Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-558).4 The way in which regular funds are
allocated to states depends on the amount of funds appropriated by Congress. The second type of
LIHEAP funds, emergency contingency funds, may be released and allotted to one or more states
at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of HHS.5 The funds may be released at any
point in the fiscal year to meet additional home energy assistance needs created by a natural
disaster or other emergency.6
The remainder of this report discusses only the history and methods of distributing regular
LIHEAP funds.

1 For additional information on LIHEAP, see CRS Report RL31865, The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding, by Libby Perl.
2 LIHEAP is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§8621-8630.
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2006 LIHEAP Report
to Congress, April 22, 2009, p. 21.
4 The formula section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623.
5 Depending on how Congress appropriates them, contingency funds may remain available for distribution in more than
one fiscal year or they may expire with the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
6 The statutory definition of emergency includes a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption, a significant
increase in the cost of home energy, a significant increase in home energy disconnections, a significant increase in
participation in a public benefit program, a significant increase in unemployment, or an event meeting such criteria as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 42 U.S.C. §8622.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP
The mid- to late-1970s, a time marked by rapidly rising fuel prices, also marked the beginning of
federal energy assistance funding for low-income households. The first national program to help
low-income households was created in early 1975 to assist families with energy conservation
primarily through home weatherization. This assistance was provided through a new Emergency
Energy Conservation Program (EECP), enacted as part of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity,
and Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644). The funds were administered by the
Community Services Administration (CSA), the successor agency to the Office of Economic
Opportunity, which was responsible for many of the programs created as part of the 1964 war on
poverty. Beginning in 1977, funds were also made available through the CSA to help families
directly pay for fuel (as opposed to weatherization expenses) via a variety of programs. Each of
these programs had in common a focus on the need for heating assistance (versus cooling
assistance).
Congress continued to appropriate funds for energy assistance programs through FY1980, at
which point a new program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) was enacted
as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). LIEAP, which was
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was funded for one year,
FY1981, before the creation of LIHEAP. Like the CSA programs, LIEAP emphasized heating
over cooling needs. This preference was reflected in both the CSA program formulas and the
LIEAP set of formulas, which used variables that benefitted cold-weather states to determine how
funds would be distributed. The LIEAP set of formulas continues to have relevance for the way in
which LIHEAP funds are distributed. This section of the report describes these predecessor
programs to LIHEAP and their distribution formulas.
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs
On January 4, 1975, President Ford signed into law the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and
Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644), which contained funds for a new program,
called the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (EECP). The program was to be
administered by the Community Services Administration (CSA), and its purpose was
to enable low-income individuals and families, including the elderly and the near poor, to
participate in energy conservation programs designed to lessen the impact of the high cost of
energy ... and to reduce ... energy consumption.
The law governing EECP listed a number of eligible activities in which states could participate,
including energy conservation and education programs; weatherization assistance; loans and
grants for the purchase of energy conservation technologies; alternative fuel supplies; and fuel
voucher and stamp programs. Despite the variety of activities that could be funded through the
program, the first CSA funding notice regarding the program limited eligible activities to
“winterizing” homes and to giving emergency assistance “to prevent hardship or danger to health
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

due to utility shutoff or lack of fuel.”7 During the four years the EECP was funded, the majority
of funds were used for weatherization expenses.8
EECP funds were distributed to states via a formula that benefitted those states with high heating
costs. One formula variable in particular, a measure of “coldness” called heating degree days,
benefitted cold-weather states. Heating degree days measure the extent to which a day’s average
temperature falls below 65° Fahrenheit. For example, a day with an average temperature of 50°
results in a measure of 15 heating degree days. Because heating degree days are higher in cold
weather states, including the heating degree day variable in a formula favors states with greater
heating needs. Squaring the heating degree days magnifies this effect.9 The EECP formula took
the number of population-weighted heating degree days in each state, squared them, and
multiplied the result by the number of households in poverty that owned their homes to determine
how funds would be allocated.10 The CSA acknowledged the emphasis on heating needs in its
formula, stating that the FY1975 allocation “was heavily weighted to the coldest areas ... ”11 In
the three fiscal years that followed the first appropriation for the EECP, from FY1976 through
FY1978, the CSA changed somewhat the way in which it allocated funds to the states; however,
the factors continued to favor cold-weather states through use of either heating degree days or
heating degree days squared.12
The first year that Congress specifically appropriated funds for direct assistance to help low-
income households (those at or below 125% of poverty) pay their energy costs (instead of funds
that went primarily for weatherization and conservation activities) was FY1977. The FY1977
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-26) provided $200 million for a Special Crisis
Intervention Program to be administered by CSA. States could use funds to make direct payments
to fuel providers on behalf of low-income families lacking the financial resources to pay their
energy bills. The CSA directed states to target households where utilities had been shut off (or
were threatened with shut off) and who could prove dire need due to large energy bills.13
Although the law did not reserve funds exclusively for heating costs, the way in which funds
were allocated to the states emphasized heating need. Funds were distributed to the states based
on a formula that used (1) heating degree days squared, (2) the number of households in poverty,
(3) the number of persons above age 65 with incomes below 125% of poverty, and (4) the relative
cost of fuel in the region.14 Congress again appropriated $200 million for crisis intervention in

7 Community Services Administration, “Character and Scope of Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency
Energy Conservation Program,” Federal Register, vol. 40, no. 145, July 28, 1975, p. 31603.
8 See, for example, House Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977 Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-68, March 11, 1977: “The funds in this program are used primarily
to purchase materials to insulate the homes of low-income families.”
9 For example, if a southern state experiences 700 heating degree days in a year and a northern state experiences 7,000,
the northern state has 10 times as many heating degree days as the southern state. However, if both numbers are
squared, the northern state has 100 times as many heating degree days as the southern state.
10 Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,”
Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p. 47096.
11 Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p. 47096.
12 See Ibid., pp. 47096-47097.
13 Community Services Administration, “Special Crisis Intervention Program: General Information, Application
Procedures, and Post Grant Requirements,” Federal Register, vol. 42, no. 125, June 29, 1977, p. 33240.
14 The formula was described in the Senate Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977. The CSA implemented this
formula, which it described in guidance to the states. See the Federal Register, Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

both FY1978 and FY1979.15 In FY1978, funds were available to households with the need for
assistance as the result of an energy-related emergency such as lack of fuel, a natural disaster, fuel
shortages, and widespread unemployment.16 In FY1979, funds were made available to assist
families facing “substantially increased energy costs and/or life- or health-threatening situations
caused by winter-related energy emergencies.”17
In FY1980, Congress appropriated a total of $1.6 billion for energy assistance. Of this amount,
$400 million was appropriated for the Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP, a CSA program
similar to the Special Crisis Intervention Program) through two separate appropriations.18 The
remainder, $1.2 billion, was appropriated as part of the FY1980 Department of the Interior
Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126) to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW, the
predecessor to HHS) for cash assistance and crisis intervention due to high energy costs. This
appropriation to HEW is sometimes referred to as Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances.
Of this $1.2 billion, $400 million was to be distributed specifically to recipients of Supplemental
Security Income (SSI). The rest of the funds appropriated to HEW, approximately $800 million,
as well as the ECAP funds, were distributed to states on the basis of three factors: heating degree
days squared, the number of households below 125% of poverty, and the difference in home
heating energy expenditures between 1978 and 1979. The formula used to distribute the $400
million for SSI recipients used these same factors but also included the number of SSI recipients
in each state relative to the national total.
Table 1. Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980
Emergency Energy
Special Crisis
Low Income Supplemental Energy
Conservation Program:a
Intervention Program:b
Allowances:c
FY1975
FY1977
FY1980
(P.L. 93-644)
(P.L. 95-26)
(P.L. 96-126)
(Heating degree days)2 * number
(Heating degree days)2
½ (Heating degree days)2 * number of
of homeowners in poverty
households below 125% of poverty

Number of households in poverty
½ Difference in home heating
expenditures between 1978 and
1979

Number of persons over age 65 with

income less than 125% of poverty

Relative cost of fuel


Source: For the formula under P.L. 93-644, see Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy
Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,” Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p.
47096. For the formula under P.L. 95-26, see Senate Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R.

15 Funds were appropriated through the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240) and in FY1979
through a continuing resolution (P.L. 95-482). In FY1978, Congress called the program Emergency Energy Assistance
Program and in FY1979 called it the Crisis Intervention Program (excluding the word “Special” from the title).
16 Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Funding Requirements for
Emergency Energy Assistance Program,” Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 46, March 8, 1978, p. 9476.
17 Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Fiscal Year 1979 Crisis
Intervention Program, “Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 250, December 28, 1978, pp. 60466-60467.
18 Congress appropriated $250 million for ECAP as part of an FY1980 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 96-123, referencing
the FY1980 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 4389), and
appropriated an additional $150 million as part of the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126).
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

4877, the FY1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Congress, 1st session, S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977.
The formula for P.L. 96-126 is contained within the law.
Note: * Multiplied by.
a. Of the funds appropriated for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program, 90% were distributed via the
formula, while the remaining 10% were divided among the 12 coldest states as measured by heating degree
days.
b. The Special Crisis Intervention Program did not specify a weight for each of the four variables used to
determine allocations.
c. Of the $1.6 billion appropriated for energy assistance in FY1980, $400 million was set aside for SSI
recipients. The formula to distribute those funds was ⅓ heating degree days2 * number of households below
125% of poverty, ⅓ difference in home heating expenditures between 1978 and 1979, and ⅓ SSI recipients
in each state relative to the national total.
Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP)
In April 1980, Congress replaced the patchwork energy assistance programs of the late 1970s
with one program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP). LIEAP, the direct
predecessor program to LIHEAP, was established as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). The program was introduced in the Senate as the Home Energy
Assistance Act (S. 1724) and was incorporated into H.R. 3919, the bill that would become the
Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act, on the Senate floor. Like the energy assistance programs of
the late 1970s such as the Special Crisis Intervention Program and the Low Income Supplemental
Energy Allowances, LIEAP allocated funds to states in order to help low-income households pay
their home energy costs. Also like these predecessor programs, LIEAP allocated funds to states
using a method that put more emphasis on the heating needs of cold-weather states than it did on
cooling needs.
During the 1970s, home energy costs had increased substantially while wages failed to keep up.
According to the report from the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources that
accompanied the Home Energy Assistance Act (S. 1724), between 1972 and 1979, heating oil
prices increased by 293%, natural gas prices by 155%, and electricity prices by 91%, while wages
grew by 59% during the same period.19 During 1978, low-income households spent an estimated
18.4% of their income, on average, to pay their utilities, with expenditures in New England by
low-income households exceeding 30% of income.20 The Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources held numerous hearings about the need for energy assistance to address the
“dramatically rising cost of home heating.”21
The resulting formula in S. 1724 reflected, in part, the committee’s concern that the problem of
rising energy costs were “most critical in areas with high home heating costs.”22 Although
subsequent changes were made to the LIEAP formula in S. 1724 before it was enacted, the need
for heating assistance continued to be paramount. The formula developed under LIEAP has been

19 Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, report to accompany S. 1724, 96th
Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 96-378, October 25, 1979, p. 2.
20 Ibid., p. 3.
21 Also discussed at the hearings was “the need for some level of assistance to be provided to certain eligible
households, where excessive heat is a factor in threatening life and health.” Ibid., p. 5. This did not figure prominently
into the formula, however.
22 Ibid., p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

used to distribute LIHEAP funds as recently as FY2007, so the variables used are important in
understanding the current formula and the way in which it is used to distribute funds.
The LIEAP Formula
When the Home Energy Assistance Act (S. 1724) was introduced, it contained a formula that
would have distributed funds to the states on the basis of half on residential energy expenditures
and half on heating degree days (the heating degree day measure is described in the previous
section “Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs”). However, on the
Senate floor, the program formula was amended, resulting in a multi-part formula under which
states would receive funds.
Formula Under P.L. 96-223
Under the final LIEAP formula in P.L. 96-223, states received funds under one of four alternative
formulas used to measure home energy need, depending on which one benefitted a state the most.
Three of the four formulas contained different combinations of several factors: residential energy
expenditures; heating degree days or heating degree days squared; and the number of low-income
households in the state.
• Under the first formula alternative, half of the allocation was based on residential
energy expenditures and half on heating degree days squared multiplied by the
number of households at or below the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) lower
living standard.23
• Under the second formula alternative, one quarter of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and three quarters based on heating degree days
squared multiplied by the number of households at or below the BLS lower
living standard.
• Under the third formula alternative, half of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and half based on heating degree days (not
squared) multiplied by the number of households with incomes at or below the
BLS lower living standard.
The fourth option guaranteed states a minimum benefit of $120 for each household that received
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Food Stamp benefits. (See Table 2 for a
breakdown of these formulas.)
All formulas in P.L. 96-223 effectively gave preference to states with colder climates due to the
variables used. As discussed earlier in this report, the heating degree day variable is a measure of
temperatures below 65° F and therefore favors cold-weather states. Squaring the heating degree
day variable magnifies the discrepancy between warm- and cold-weather states. In addition,

23 The BLS determined the lower living standard income level through its annual family budgets, which it maintained
from 1947 to 1981. At the time the LIEAP program was enacted, the BLS developed annual family budgets assuming
three different standards of living: lower, intermediate, and higher. The budget was calculated using costs of consumer
goods including food, housing, transportation, clothing, and health care (unlike the federal poverty guidelines, which
are based on the amount of money needed to buy food). The budget was then adjusted for family size and the prices of
goods in various cities throughout the country. See David S. Johnson, John M. Rogers, and Lucilla Tan, “A Century of
Family Budgets in the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, 124, no. 5 (May 2001): 28-45.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

residential energy expenditures of all households (rather than energy expenditures of low-income
households only) are higher in cold-weather states because, on average, the proportion of poor
families in warm-weather states is higher than that in cold-weather states. However, the LIEAP
law did allow states to provide for cooling when households could demonstrate medical
necessity.24 Congress authorized LIEAP for one year, FY1981, at $3 billion, but funds were not
appropriated as part of P.L. 96-223.
Formula Under P.L. 96-369
Before the formula in P.L. 96-223 could be used to allocate funds, Congress introduced an
alternative method for computing the state distribution rates. It did so when it appropriated $1.85
billion in LIEAP funds for FY1981 in a continuing resolution (P.L. 96-369), in October of 1980,
six months after enactment of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. The new allocation method
was not described in P.L. 96-369, however. Instead, the continuing resolution referred to a House
Appropriations Committee report (H. Rept. 96-1244) accompanying another bill—the FY1981
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. It was in
this committee report that the specific formula components for LIEAP were laid out.25 H. Rept.
96-1244 did little to erode the de facto cold-weather states preference enacted in the original
LIEAP formula.
The first step in the new set of formulas was to determine each state’s share of funds using two
calculations set out in H. Rept. 96-1244 and assign states the greater of the two amounts.
• Under the first formula alternative, half of the allocation was based on the
increase in home heating expenditures, and half was based on the number of
heating degree days squared times the population with income less than or equal
to 125% of poverty.
• Under the second formula alternative, one quarter of the allocation was based on
total residential energy expenditures, and three quarters was based on heating
degree days squared multiplied by the number of low-income households in the
state.
The greater of the two percentages calculated using the formula in H. Rept. 96-1244 was then
assigned to each state. After adjusting state allotments proportionately so that the total allocation
reached 100% of funds available, the second step in the amended formula was to compare these
state allotments to 75% of the amount each state would receive under the formula in P.L. 96-223.
States would then receive the greater of these two amounts.
Although the alternative formulas under H.Rept. 96-1244used factors similar to those in P.L. 96-
223, the original set of formulas was slightly more favorable to warm-weather states. For
example, the BLS lower living standard was higher than 125% of poverty for most household

24 According to the law, “The State is authorized to make grants to eligible households to meet the rising costs of
cooling whenever the household establishes that such cooling is the result of medical need pursuant to standards
established by the Secretary.”
25 House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980, pp.
75-76.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

sizes, which benefitted the South, where the low-income population was higher.26 The original set
of formulas also provided for a minimum benefit to states on the basis of the number of AFDC
and Food Stamp recipient households, unconditioned on their household heating expenditures. In
addition, the inclusion of the increase in home heating expenditures in H. Rept. 96-1244
benefitted northeastern states, where heating oil prices had increased substantially.27
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP
P.L. 96-223
P.L. 96-369
Assign each state the option under which they receive the
Each state receives the greater of 75% of the
greatest proportion of funds. If Options 2 and 3 both result in amount under P.L. 96-223 or Option 1 or Option 2
a greater proportion than Option 1, assign the state the
under P.L. 96-369.
lesser of Option 2 or 3.
Option 1:
½ Residential energy expenditures
Option 1: ½ Increase in home heating
expenditures from 1978-1980a

½ (Heating degree days)2 * Households with

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

¾ (Heating degree days)2 * Households with

¾ (Heating degree days)2 *
income ≤ BLS lower living standard
Households with income ≤ BLS
lower living standard
Option 3:
½ Residential energy expenditures




½ Heating degree days * Households with



income ≤ BLS lower living standard
Option 4:
Funds sufficient for a minimum benefit of



$120 per AFDC- and/or Food Stamp-
recipient household
Source: The Crude Oil Windfal Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223) and the House Appropriations Committee
Report to Accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Bill, H.Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980.
Notes: * Multiplied by.
≤ Less than or equal to.
a. H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify which years would be used to determine residential energy expenditures;
1978 and 1980 were the years used by HHS.
Enactment of LIHEAP
In August 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 97-35, created LIHEAP, replacing
its predecessor, LIEAP. The new program was not substantially different from the previous
program. Some of the changes to the program included less restrictive federal rules and more
state flexibility in determining how to operate their LIHEAP programs. The program was

26 “The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 5.
27 H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify the years between which the increase in home heating expenditures should be
measured. In implementing the formula, HHS measured the increase between 1978 and 1980.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

authorized at $1.85 billion for FY1982-FY1984. In FY1982, Congress appropriated $1.875
billion for LIHEAP; in FY1983, it appropriated $1.975 billion; and in FY1984, $2.075 billion.
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula
When the formula for LIEAP was initially created in 1980 under the Crude Oil Windfall Profits
Tax Act (P.L. 96-223), it brought about a good deal of debate on the floor of the Senate, where the
formula provisions were added to the legislation.28 Discussion over the formula also occurred
leading up to the enactment of P.L. 96-369, the FY1981 continuing resolution that funded LIEAP
and amended the formula.29 Despite these earlier disagreements over formula allocations, the
process to enact LIHEAP in 1981 did not engender the same level of debate or result in a different
formula. Instead, the law creating LIHEAP provided that the allotment percentages for each state
would remain the same as they had been in FY1981 under the LIEAP formula as amended by P.L.
96-369. From FY1982 through FY1984, then, states continued to receive the same proportion of
funds that they received under the LIEAP formula.
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula
Formula Discussions
When Congress began to consider reauthorizing LIHEAP in 1983, two aspects of the formula
were debated. First, legislators recognized that the multi-step LIEAP formula benefitted cold-
weather states relative to warm-weather states.30 This was due to the heating degree day variable
and the fact that residential energy costs of all households (instead of just low-income
households) were used under the various LIEAP formulas. The second debated aspect of the
formula centered on the appropriateness and timeliness of the data used in formula calculations.
In 1983, the energy information used to calculate state allotments was not the most current data
available.31 For example, the most recent data the formula used were the change in the cost of
energy between 1978 and 1980, or the cost of energy in 1980, depending on the sub-formula one
chose to apply. No aspect of the formula took account of increased costs after 1980.32
Legislative sentiment in favor of changing the formula was evident, when, in September 1983,
the House adopted an amendment to the Emergency Immigration Education Act (H.R. 3520) that
would have adjusted the LIHEAP formula and resulted in a change in allocations to the states.
The amendment’s formula took into account the energy expenditures of poor families, which,
according to the amendment’s sponsor, Representative Carlos Moorhead (California), would
result in lower percentage allocations for 23 states, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, gains

28 See, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, parts 24-25 (November 13-15, 1979), pp. 32082-
32086, 32275-32293, 32558-32565.
29 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), pp. 23502-23515.
30 See, for example, Comments of Rep. Billy Tauzin, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittees on Energy and
Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, 98th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 1983, pp. 119-120.
31 Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
32 Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

for 27, primarily in the South, and the same allocation for one state.33 The amendment was
eventually dropped from H.R. 3520 in conference with the Senate.
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level
Efforts to reauthorize LIHEAP had begun in April 1983 with the introduction of the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 2439). The bill was referred to two
committees: Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce. Within the Energy and Commerce
committee, two subcommittees held mark-ups: Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy
Conservation and Power.
As introduced, H.R. 2439 did not contain changes to the LIHEAP formula. The Subcommittees
on Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy Conservation and Power worked together to arrive at a
formula change, which had the effect of shifting funds from states in the Northeast to the South
and West. Unlike the previous set of formulas developed under LIEAP, the new formula directed
the Department of Health and Human Services to determine states’ allotments “using data relating
to the most recent year for which data is available.” Because the cost of heating oil remained
steady between 1981 and 1983, and the price of natural gas rose 33%, this meant that states in the
Northeast—where heating oil was the primary source of energy—would lose LIHEAP dollars,
while states in the South and the Midwest would gain under this provision.34 In addition,
population growth in the South (as well as its higher poverty rates) meant that southern states
would benefit from the use of more recent population data.
To offset the losses to certain states resulting from the use of current data, H.R. 2439 also
included a hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless level; this provision ensured that if
appropriations were less than or equal to $1.875 billion, states would receive no less than their
allotment would have been under the old formula at this appropriations level. The bill
additionally increased the LIHEAP authorization level to $2.075 billion for FY1984, $2.26 billion
for FY1985, $2.625 billion for FY1987, and $2.8 billion for FY1988.
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate
After the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported H.R. 2439 to the House floor—but
before the full House could act on the bill—the Senate passed its version of LIHEAP
reauthorization as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (S. 2565) on October 4,
1984.35 The Senate bill contained language very similar to H.R. 2439, but made several changes
and additions to the formula.
• S. 2565 specified that states’ shares of LIHEAP funds would be based on the
home energy expenditures of low-income households, not on expenditures of all
households.

33 Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 17 (September 13, 1983), p. 23877. The greatest increases in percentage
allocations were for Florida at 51%, Texas at 44%, and Alabama at 37%. The states whose percentage allocations
decreased the most were Vermont at 32%, North Dakota at 24%, and New Hampshire at 23%.
34 “The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 9.
35 The final version of S. 2565 can be found in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), p.
S13393.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

• The hold-harmless level was altered. S. 2565 directed that no state in FY1985
would receive fewer funds than it received in FY1984, and for FY1986 and
thereafter, no state would receive less than the amount they would have received
in FY1984 if the appropriations level had been $1.975 billion.
• A second hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless rate, was created. The
provision maintained the percentage allocated rather than a total funding level
allocated to each affected state.
The hold-harmless rate provision guaranteed that certain states would receive increased
allotments when appropriations reached $2.25 billion. States would qualify for this increase if
their total allotment percentage at an appropriation of $2.25 billion were less than 1%. These
states would instead receive the allotment rate they would have received at an appropriation of
$2.14 billion if that allotment rate were higher than the rate at $2.25 billion. In its debate about S.
2565, Senators referred to the hold-harmless rate as the “small States hold harmless,” as the intent
was to protect the small (population) states’ shares of LIHEAP funds.36 Otherwise, these states’
percentage shares of LIHEAP funds might decline, even as total appropriations increased. No rate
protection was guaranteed for more populous states beyond the aforementioned hold-harmless
level.
The Senate bill also included different authorization amounts for LIHEAP, $2.14 billion for
FY1985 and $2.275 billion for FY1986. After S. 2565 passed the Senate, the House debated and
passed the bill on October 9, 1984, retaining all the provisions included in the Senate version. The
bill became P.L. 98-558, the Human Services Reauthorization Act, on October 30, 1984.
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language
Unlike the allocation formulas under LIEAP and the other energy assistance programs that
preceded LIHEAP, which dictated the use of specific variables to determine allotments to the
states, the LIHEAP formula as drafted by Congress gives more general guidance to HHS. The
LIHEAP statute, as enacted in P.L. 98-558 and codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2) provides as
follows.
(A) a State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by
low-income households in that State bears to such expenditures in all States, except that
States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments by reason of the
application of this paragraph from the amount they received pursuant to P.L. 98-139 [the
FY1984 appropriation] shall have their allotments reduced to the extent necessary to ensure
that—
(i) no State for fiscal year 1985 shall receive less than the amount of funds the State
received in fiscal year 1984; and
(ii) no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984 if the appropriations for this
subchapter for fiscal year 1984 had been $1,975,000,000, and
(B) any State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total
appropriation of $2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when

36 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), pp. S13415-S13416.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

total appropriations equal or exceed $2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced
from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation of $2,140,000,000.
The next section of this report describes how funds are allocated to the states according to this
statutory language.
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments
Using the “New” Formula
Current law as enacted in P.L. 98-558, sometimes referred to as the “new” LIHEAP formula,
provides for three different methods to calculate each state’s allotment of regular LIHEAP funds.
The calculation method used to determine state allotments depends upon the size of the
appropriation for that fiscal year. If the annual appropriation level does not exceed the equivalent
of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, then the allocation rates under the “old”
LIHEAP formula apply. This is sometimes referred to as “Tier I” of the LIHEAP formula. If
appropriations exceed a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, then new formula
rates apply and are used to calculate state allotments. To calculate the new formula rates, the most
recent data available are used to determine the heating and cooling costs of low-income
households. When appropriations exceed the $1.975 billion level, but are less than $2.25 billion,
the new formula rates are used together with the hold-harmless level. This is sometimes referred
to as “Tier II” of the LIHEAP formula. Finally, if appropriations equal or exceed $2.25 billion,
the new rates apply and both the hold-harmless level together with the hold-harmless rate are in
effect. This is sometimes referred to as “Tier III” of the LIHEAP formula. This section describes
the steps involved in allocating LIHEAP funds to the states under the three tiers of the formula.
Calculating the New Formula Rates
As mentioned previously, when Congress considered a new formula for distributing LIHEAP
funds in 1983 and 1984, one of its concerns was the appropriateness and timeliness of the data
used in formula calculations. At the time, the energy information used to calculate state
allotments under the LIEAP formula did not use the most current data available.37 For example,
the formula used the change in cost of energy between 1978 and 1980, but did not take account of
increased costs after 1980. In fact, the formula factors were fixed rates, and the LIHEAP statute at
that time had no provision for allowing newer information to be incorporated into the
determination of state allotments. The LIHEAP formula as created by P.L. 98-558 requires HHS
to use the most recent data available. HHS updates these data periodically. The most recent data
were provided to CRS in April of 2009.
As directed by the statute as enacted in 1984, the LIHEAP formula uses the home energy
expenditures of low-income households in each state as a first step in determining the proportion
of total regular funds that each state will receive.38 Specifically, this means estimating the amount

37 Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
38 “[A] State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by low-income households
in that State bears to such expenditures in all States ... ” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2).
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

of money that all low-income households (as defined by the LIHEAP statute39) in each state
spend on heating and cooling from all energy sources. This method accounts for variations in
heating and cooling needs of the states, the types of energy used, energy prices, and the low-
income population and their heating and cooling methods. The process for capturing the
expenditures of low-income households for the most current year possible involves the following
steps.
• Total Residential Energy Consumption. The first step in calculating new
formula rates is determining total residential energy consumption for each
heating and cooling source in every state. Residential energy consumption is
usually measured in terms of the total amount of British Thermal Units (Btus)
used in private households and generally captures energy used for space and
water heating, cooling, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and the energy needed to
operate appliances. The most recent data used in calculating LIHEAP formula
rates come from the 2006 Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Energy
Data System consumption estimates.
• Temperature Variation. The next step in determining the formula rates involves
adjusting the amount of energy consumed for each fuel source by temperature
variation in each state. This is done by using a ratio consisting of the 30-year
average heating and cooling degree day data to each state’s share of the most
recent year’s average heating and cooling degree days. A heating degree day
measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature falls below 65°F and a
cooling degree day measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature
rises above 65°F.40 For example, a day with an average temperature of 50°F
results in a measure of 15 heating degree days; a day with an average temperature
of 80°F results in a measure of 15 cooling degree days. The purpose of the
adjustment to fuel consumption is to account for abnormally warm or cool years,
where energy usage might attain extreme values. This information is collected by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The most recent year’s
average heating and cooling degree day data are from 2006, and the 30-year
average was computed from 1971 to 2000.
• Heating and Cooling Consumption. As mentioned above, total residential
energy consumption encompasses other uses in addition to heating and cooling
(e.g. operation of appliances). So the next step in calculating LIHEAP formula
rates is to derive the portion of fuel consumed specifically to heat and cool homes
as opposed to other uses. The EIA, as part of the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS), uses an “end use estimation methodology” to
estimate the amount of fuel used for heating and cooling (among other uses). The
most recent information on heating and cooling consumption comes from the
2005 RECS.41
• Low-Income Household Heating and Cooling Consumption. After estimating
heating and cooling consumption for all households, the next step is to calculate
heating and cooling consumption in Btus for low-income households. The

39 The LIHEAP statute considers households with income at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income
(whichever value is greater) to be low income. 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B).
40 A state’s heating and cooling degree data are weighted by population in the state.
41 For more information about the RECS, see the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Census Bureau prepares a special sample for HHS of the fuel sources used by
low-income households. The most recent information on low-income households
and the fuel sources they use comes from the 2006 American Community Survey.
In addition, low-income consumption data are adjusted to account for the fact
that low-income households might use more or less of a fuel source than is used
by households on average. This is done using consumption data from the 2005
RECS.
• Total Spending on Heating and Cooling. To arrive at the amount of money that
low-income households spend on heating and cooling, the number of Btus used
by low-income households that were estimated in the previous step are multiplied
by the average fuel price for each fuel source. The total amount spent on heating
and cooling by low-income households for each fuel source is then added
together to arrive at total spending for each state. Regional energy price variation
can be significant, and the formula takes expected expenditure differences into
account. This information is collected by the EIA and published in the State
Energy Data System Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates.42 The most
recent price data used to calculate formula rates are from 2006.
• New Formula Rate. Finally, these expenditure data are used to estimate the
amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in each state
relative to the amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in
all states. The calculated proportion becomes the new formula percentage, or
rate, for each state. Table 3 at the end of this section shows both the rates under
the “old” formula (column (a)) and the most recent “new” formula rates (column
(b)), received by CRS from HHS in April 2009. To see how the formula rates for
each state have changed in recent years, see Table 4 (it follows Table 3).
These new formula rates are used to allocate LIHEAP funds to the states if the annual
appropriation exceeds the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
However, these new formula rates do not represent the exact proportion of funds that states will
receive under the new formula. The ultimate allotments are determined after application of the
both the hold-harmless level and hold-harmless rate, described in the next section. The new rates
are the starting point for determining how funds will be allocated to the states.
Using the New Formula Rates to Allocate Funds to the States
The LIHEAP new formula rates that HHS calculates using the most current data available do not
necessarily represent the proportion of funds that states will receive. State allotments depend
upon the application of the two hold-harmless provisions in the LIHEAP statute. Some states
must have their share of funds ratably reduced in order to hold harmless those states that would,
but for the hold-harmless provisions, lose funds. Other states see a gain in their share of funds
because they benefit from the hold-harmless provisions. The application of the hold-harmless
provisions depends upon the size of the appropriation for a given fiscal year. These appropriation
level triggers are described below.

42 The EIA’s state data tables are available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Tier I: Below $1.975 Billion
Current law requires that for fiscal years in which the regular LIHEAP fund appropriation is
equivalent to a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion or less, states receive the
same percentage of funds that they would have received at that appropriation level under the
“old” LIHEAP formula.43 This FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion referred to in the LIHEAP
statute is hypothetical because this was not the amount actually appropriated in FY1984. The
actual FY1984 appropriation was $2.075 billion. In addition, the current year appropriation that is
“equivalent to” a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is not exactly $1.975
billion. In FY1984, with the exception of funds provided to the territories, all LIHEAP regular
funds were distributed to the states. Since then, two other funds have become part of the regular
fund distribution. These are funds for training and technical assistance and for the leveraging
incentive grants (which includes REACH grants) to the states. This means that an appropriation
that is equivalent to a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion must account for these
new funds. Assuming that funds for leveraging incentive/REACH grants is $27 million and
training and technical assistance is $300,000 (the amounts allocated to these funds in FY2009),
then the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is approximately $2.0023
billion.44
The LIHEAP formula in FY1984 distributed funds by giving states the same share of funds that
they received in FY1981 under the predecessor program, the Low Income Energy Assistance
Program (LIEAP). Table 3, at the end of this section of the report, shows rates under the old
formula in column (a). For example, at an appropriation at or below the equivalent of a
hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, Alabama would receive 0.86% of total
funds, Alaska would receive 0.55% of total funds, and so on. Table A-1, column (a) reports the
dollar amount of funds that each state would have received in FY1984 had the regular fund
appropriation been $1.975 billion.
Tier II: From $1.975 Billion up to $2.25 Billion
If the regular LIHEAP appropriation exceeds a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975
billion for the fiscal year, all funds are to be distributed under a different methodology, using the
new set of rates described earlier. In addition, a hold-harmless level applies to ensure that certain
states do not fall below the amount of funds they would have received at the equivalent of a
hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion. Table 3, at the end of this section, shows
whether a state benefits from the hold-harmless level. This is indicated by a “Y” in column (c),
while the dollar amount of funds those states receive by being held harmless appears in column
(d). For example, Alabama is not held harmless, while California is held harmless. The dollar
amount of funds that California receives pursuant to the hold-harmless level is $91.001 million.
But for the hold-harmless level, California would receive less than this dollar amount at its new
formula rate at certain appropriation levels. Eventually, when appropriations increase sufficiently,

43 It is important to understand, however, that although the new formula rates are always applied to all appropriations,
when appropriations are below a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, the result of the current law’s
hold-harmless provisions is that states receive the same allotment percentages that they did under the old formula. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress
for FY1987, p. 133.
44 This amount is arrived at by adding $27 million and $300,000 to $1.975 billion.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

the allotments for states that are held harmless will exceed their hold harmless amounts. This
appropriation level varies for each state.
The hold-harmless level is achieved by reducing the allocation of funds to those states with the
greatest proportional gains under the new formula rates.45 For example, under the most recent
LIHEAP formula rates, states with the greatest proportional gains were Florida, Texas, and
Nevada. Depending on the appropriation level, these states (and others with the greatest gains)
may then have their allotments reduced to hold harmless those states that would otherwise see
reduced benefits. So although these states with the greatest proportional gains will see their
LIHEAP allotments increase under the new formula, their allotments may not increase to reach
their new formula rates (column (b) of Table 3).
Columns (b) and (c) of Table A-1 show estimated allotments to the states at hypothetical
appropriations levels under Tier II of the LIHEAP formula. Column (b) shows the estimated
allotment of funds that each state would receive when the regular fund appropriation is at $2.14
billion and column (c) shows the estimated allotment of funds when the regular fund
appropriation is just under $2.25 billion ($2,249,999,999).
Tier III: At or Above $2.25 Billion
The LIHEAP statute stipulates additional requirements in the method for distributing funds when
the appropriation is at or above $2.25 billion. At this level, all of the provisions specified in the
Tier II allocation methodology are in place, including the change in the formula factors and the
hold-harmless level. In addition, a new hold-harmless rate is applied. That is, for all appropriation
levels at or above $2.25 billion, states that would have received less than 1% of a total $2.25
billion appropriation must be allocated the percentage they would have received at a $2.14 billion
appropriation level.46 (This assumes the percentage at $2.14 billion is greater than the percentage
originally calculated at the hypothetical $2.25 billion appropriation; this is not true for all states
that receive less than 1% of the $2.25 billion appropriation.) Then that state will receive the $2.14
billion allotment proportion for all appropriation levels at or above $2.25 billion. This hold-
harmless rate ensures a state specific share of the total available funds.
As with the Tier II funding level, the allocations to the states with the greatest proportional gains
are then ratably reduced again, using the methodology described in the Tier II discussion, until
there is no funding shortfall. Column (e) of Table 3 shows which states benefit from the hold-
harmless rate, indicated by a “Y,” while column (f) shows the proportion of funds that those states
receive. For example, Idaho benefits from the hold-harmless rate and receives 0.587% of the total
appropriation when appropriations are at or above $2.25 billion.
The application of the hold-harmless rate creates another layer of discontinuity in the allocation
rates. Columns (d) through (h) of Table A-1 in Appendix A show estimated allotments to states

45 “States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments ... shall have their allotments reduced
to the extent necessary to ensure that ... no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984 ...” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A)(ii).
46 “[A]ny State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total appropriation of
$2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when total appropriations equal or exceed
$2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation
of $2,140,000,000.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(B).
Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

at various hypothetical appropriations levels above at or above $2.25 billion. Column (d) shows
the estimated allotment of funds that each state receives when the regular appropriation is at
$2.25 billion after the hold-harmless rate is applied. Columns (e) through (h) show the estimated
allotment each state would receive at $2.5 billion, $3.0 billion, $4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion.
Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP Formula
Until FY2006, appropriations for regular LIHEAP funds had only exceeded the equivalent of a
hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion in 1985 and 1986; therefore, from FY1987
through FY2005, and again in FY2007, states continued to receive the same percentage of
LIHEAP funds that they received under the program’s predecessor, LIEAP (see column (a) of
Table 3 for these proportions). In FY2006, funds were distributed under the “new” LIHEAP
formula when Congress appropriated $2.48 billion in regular funds for the program. In FY2008,
perhaps due to an oversight, the new formula was again used to distribute funds. The FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) failed to authorize a set-aside called leveraging
incentive grants. As a result, the funds for those grants were added to the LIHEAP regular funds,
triggering the new formula.47 In FY2009, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329) appropriated $4.51 billion in regular funds.
However, the law further specified that $840 million be distributed according to the “new”
LIHEAP formula, with the remaining $3.67 billion distributed according to the proportions of the
“old” formula established by LIEAP. For FY2010, the President has proposed to fund LIHEAP
regular funds at $2.41 billion, which would also involve application of the new formula. See
Table C-1 in Appendix C of this report for the distribution of funds to the states in FY2006
through FY2009 and for estimated allocations under the President’s FY2010 budget proposal.
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP):
“Old” and “New” Allotment Rates by State, 2009



Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
Subject to
Hold-
Subject to
“Old”
“New”
Hold-
Harmless
Hold-
Hold-
Allotment
Allotment
Harmless
Level
Harmless
Harmless
Rate (%)
Rate (%)
Level?
($Millions)
Rate?
Rate (%)
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Alabama 0.860
1.582
N —
N —
Alaska 0.549
0.575
N —
N —
Arizona 0.416
1.018
N —
N —
Arkansas 0.656
0.884
N —
N —
California 4.614
4.479
Y 91.001
N —
Colorado 1.609
1.333
Y 31.729
N —
Connecticut 2.099
2.205
N
—
N
—
Delaware 0.279
0.375
N
—
N —
District of
0.326 0.181
Y
6.428
Y
Columbia
0.305

47 For more information about this issue, see Appendix C of this report.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law




Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
Subject to
Hold-
Subject to
“Old”
“New”
Hold-
Harmless
Hold-
Hold-
Allotment
Allotment
Harmless
Level
Harmless
Harmless
Rate (%)
Rate (%)
Level?
($Millions)
Rate?
Rate (%)
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Florida 1.361
4.728
N —
N —
Georgia 1.076
2.620
N —
N —
Hawai 0.108
0.150
N —
N —
Idaho 0.628
0.396
Y
12.376
Y
0.587
Illinois 5.809 4.843
Y
114.565
N
—
Indiana 2.630
2.147
Y
51.872
N —
Iowa 1.864
1.028
Y
36.762
N
—
Kansas 0.856
0.978
N —
N —
Kentucky 1.369
1.243
Y 26.994
N —
Louisiana 0.879
1.324
N —
N —
Maine 1.360
1.127
Y
26.815
N —
Maryland 1.607
1.965
N —
N —
Massachusetts 4.198 3.757
Y
82.797
N
—
Michigan 5.515
5.040
Y
108.770
N —
Minnesota 3.973
2.023
Y 78.363
N
—
Mississippi 0.737
0.974
N
—
N
—
Missouri 2.320
2.014
Y
45.762
N —
Montana 0.736
0.295
Y
14.517
Y 0.688
Nebraska 0.922
0.547
Y 18.180
Y 0.862
Nevada 0.195
0.500
N —
N —
New
Hampshire
0.795 0.612
Y
15.672
Y
0.743
New Jersey
3.897
3.995
N
—
N
—
New Mexico
0.521
0.458
Y
10.270
Y
0.487
New York
12.725
9.520
Y
250.974
N
—
North
Carolina
1.896 2.766
N
—
N
—
North Dakota
0.800
0.246
Y
15.770
Y
0.747
Ohio 5.139
4.893
Y
101.350
N
—
Oklahoma 0.791
1.236
N
—
N
—
Oregon 1.247
0.715
Y
24.591
N —
Pennsylvania 6.835
5.993
Y 134.810
N
—
Rhode Island
0.691
0.635
Y
13.629
Y
0.646
South Carolina
0.683
1.278
N
—
N
—
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law




Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
Subject to
Hold-
Subject to
“Old”
“New”
Hold-
Harmless
Hold-
Hold-
Allotment
Allotment
Harmless
Level
Harmless
Harmless
Rate (%)
Rate (%)
Level?
($Millions)
Rate?
Rate (%)
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
South Dakota
0.649
0.249
Y
12.808
Y
0.607
Tennessee 1.386
1.743
N
—
N
—
Texas 2.264
7.668
N —
N —
Utah 0.748
0.559
Y
14.745
Y
0.699
Vermont 0.596
0.418
Y 11.747
Y 0.557
Virginia 1.957
2.428
N —
N —
Washington 2.051
1.225
Y 40.450
N
—
West Virginia
0.906
0.663
Y
17.864
Y
0.847
Wisconsin 3.576
2.229
Y 70.538
N
—
Wyoming 0.299
0.137
Y 5.903
Y 0.280
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in April 2009.
Note: The actual proportion of total regular funds each state receives at funding levels above $1.975 billion may
differ substantial y from the calculated new formula rate due to the hold-harmless provisions and the ratable
reductions to cover shortfall from these hold-harmless provisions.
a. The states that benefit from the hold-harmless level vary depending on the amount appropriated for
LIHEAP regular funds. The states listed here benefit from the hold-harmless level when appropriations just
exceed the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.

Congressional Research Service
19

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Table 4. Recent State Allotment Rates Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula
Dates Based on Years in Which CRS Received Data from HHS
“Old”
Formula
States
Rates 2005 2007 2008 2009
Alabama
0.860% 1.722% 1.932% 1.650% 1.582%
Alaska
0.549 0.372 0.376 0.317 0.575
Arizona
0.416 0.838 0.992 0.813 1.018
Arkansas
0.656 0.929 1.082 0.910 0.884
California 4.614 6.255 5.690 5.303 4.479
Colorado 1.609 1.148 1.280 1.305 1.333
Connecticut 2.099 1.952 1.732 2.164 2.205
Delaware 0.279 0.432 0.435 0.453 0.375
District of
Columbia
0.326 0.321 0.309 0.328 0.181
Florida
1.361 3.583 4.187 3.781 4.728
Georgia
1.076 2.445 2.829 2.734 2.620
Hawai
0.108 0.104 0.101 0.099 0.150
Idaho
0.628 0.330 0.386 0.331 0.396
Illinois 5.809 5.960 4.796 4.998 4.843
Indiana
2.630 2.204 2.209 2.128 2.147
Iowa
1.864 1.200 1.085 1.064 1.028
Kansas
0.856 1.094 1.105 1.106 0.978
Kentucky
1.369 1.811 1.688 1.621 1.243
Louisiana
0.879 1.679 1.704 1.514 1.324
Maine
1.360 0.929 0.722 0.908 1.127
Maryland
1.607 2.699 2.421 2.652 1.965
Massachusetts
4.198 3.117 3.043 3.311 3.757
Michigan
5.515 3.940 4.651 4.645 5.040
Minnesota 3.973 1.782 1.789 1.917 2.023
Mississippi 0.737 1.538 1.105 0.951 0.974
Missouri
2.320 2.431 2.497 2.309 2.014
Montana
0.736 0.392 0.414 0.441 0.295
Nebraska
0.922 0.539 0.598 0.558 0.547
Nevada
0.195 0.465 0.686 0.576 0.500
New
Hampshire
0.795 0.543 0.453 0.503 0.612
New
Jersey 3.897 3.166 2.838 3.621 3.995
New
Mexico 0.521 0.486 0.628 0.577 0.458
New
York 12.725 9.313 8.491 9.393 9.520
Congressional Research Service
20

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

“Old”
Formula
States
Rates
2005 2007 2008 2009
North
1.896 3.247 3.186 3.261 2.766
Carolina
North
0.800 0.209 0.235 0.273 0.246
Dakota
Ohio
5.139 4.992 4.512 4.803 4.893
Oklahoma 0.791 1.275 1.452 1.275 1.236
Oregon
1.247 0.839 1.008 0.750 0.715
Pennsylvania 6.835 5.380 5.174 5.731 5.993
Rhode
Island 0.691 0.612 0.596 0.665 0.635
South
0.683 1.418 1.425 1.349 1.278
Carolina
South
Dakota 0.649 0.275 0.268 0.235 0.249
Tennessee 1.386 1.893 2.055 1.801 1.743
Texas
2.264 5.752 7.095 6.524 7.668
Utah
0.748 0.555 0.648 0.599 0.559
Vermont
0.596 0.360 0.356 0.319 0.418
Virginia
1.957 2.956 2.817 3.041 2.428
Washington 2.051 1.264 1.621 1.204 1.225
West
Virginia 0.906 0.973 0.960 0.907 0.663
Wisconsin 3.576 2.081 2.108 2.080 2.229
Wyoming 0.299 0.201 0.233 0.202 0.137
Source: State rate data were received by CRS from HHS in December of 2005, May of 2007, September of
2008, and April of 2009.

Congressional Research Service
21

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States
Under Various Hypothetical Appropriation Levels
Table A-1, below, shows estimated allocations to the states at various hypothetical appropriations
levels. In column (a) are allotments at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of
$1.975 billion—under current LIHEAP practice where funds are set aside for leveraging incentive
grants and training and technical assistance, the equivalent appropriation level is approximately
$2.0023 billion. The remaining columns show estimated allotments at appropriations of $2.14
billion, just under $2.25 billion, $2.25 billion, $3.0 billion, $4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion, the
amount at which the LIHEAP program was last authorized in P.L. 109-58.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

.

Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds
at Various Hypothetical Appropriation Levels
($ in millions)

Tier I
Tier II
Tier III
Hypothetical $1.975
Billion
Just under $2.25
in FY1984
$2.14 Billion
Billion
$2.25 Billion $2.5 Billion
$3.0 Billion
$4.0 Billion
$5.1 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Alabama
16.963
22.793 29.149
28.264 39.071 46.971 62.772 80.153
Alaska
10.828
12.133 12.765
12.765 14.201 17.072 22.816 29.133
Arizona
8.203
11.023 14.097
13.669 19.915 29.407 40.404 51.591
Arkansas
12.943
17.392 19.618
19.618 21.825 26.238 35.064 44.773
California
91.001
94.507 99.427
99.427 110.610 132.977 177.709 226.915
Colorado
31.729
31.729 31.729
31.729 32.914 39.569 52.880 67.521
Connecticut
41.392
46.530 48.953
48.953 54.459 65.471 87.495 111.721
Delaware
5.494
7.382 8.331
8.331 9.268 11.142 14.890 19.013
District of
Columbia
6.428
6.428 6.428
6.763 7.524 9.045 12.088 15.434
Florida
26.840
36.065 46.123
44.722 65.160 96.214 145.054 185.218
Georgia
21.221
28.515 36.467
35.360 51.519 76.072 103.927 132.703
Hawai
2.137
2.872 3.331
3.331 3.706 4.455 5.954 7.603
Idaho
12.376
12.376 12.376
13.021 14.485 17.415 23.273 29.717
Illinois
114.565 114.565
114.565 114.565
119.588 143.770 192.133 245.332
Indiana
51.872
51.872 51.872
51.872 53.018 63.739 85.180 108.766
Iowa
36.762
36.762 36.762
36.762 36.762 36.762 40.782 52.074
Kansas
16.883
20.642 21.717
21.717 24.159 29.045 38.815 49.563
Kentucky
26.994
26.994 27.598
27.598 30.702 36.911 49.327 62.986
Louisiana
17.342
23.302 29.397
28.896 32.703 39.316 52.542 67.090
Maine
26.815
26.815 26.815
26.815 27.819 33.444 44.695 57.070
CRS-23

---

.


Tier I
Tier II
Tier III
Hypothetical $1.975
Billion
Just under $2.25
in FY1984
$2.14 Billion
Billion
$2.25 Billion $2.5 Billion
$3.0 Billion
$4.0 Billion
$5.1 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Maryland
31.693
41.463 43.622
43.622 48.528 58.341 77.967 99.555
Massachusetts
82.797
82.797 83.399
83.399 92.779 111.540 149.061 190.335
Michigan
108.770
108.770 111.882
111.882 124.466 149.633 199.969 255.339
Minnesota
78.363
78.363 78.363
78.363 78.363 78.363 80.252 102.472
Mississippi
14.543
19.541 21.622
21.622 24.054 28.918 38.645 49.346
Missouri
45.762
45.762 45.762
45.762 49.737 59.794 79.909 102.035
Montana
14.517
14.517 14.517
15.273 16.990 20.426 27.297 34.856
Nebraska
18.180
18.180 18.180
19.127 21.278 25.581 34.186 43.652
Nevada
3.853
5.177 6.621
6.420 9.354 13.812 19.844 25.339
New
Hampshire 15.672
15.672 15.672
16.488 18.342 22.051 29.469 37.629
New
Jersey
76.865
84.286 88.674
88.674 98.648 118.596 158.491 202.375
New
Mexico
10.270
10.270 10.270
10.805 12.020 14.451 19.312 24.659
New
York
250.974
250.974 250.974
250.974 250.974 282.630 377.705 482.288
North
Carolina
37.403
50.257 61.402
61.402 68.308 82.121 109.745 140.133
North
Dakota
15.770
15.770 15.770
16.591 18.457 22.189 29.653 37.864
Ohio
101.350
103.229 108.604
108.604 120.819 145.250 194.111 247.858
Oklahoma
15.592
20.951 26.794
25.980 30.515 36.686 49.026 62.601
Oregon
24.591
24.591 24.591
24.591 24.591 24.591 28.349 36.199
Pennsylvania
134.810
134.810 134.810
134.810 147.980 177.903 237.749 303.579
Rhode
Island
13.629
13.629 14.104
14.339 15.951 19.177 25.628 32.724
South
Carolina
13.472
18.102 23.150
22.447 31.569 37.952 50.719 64.763
South
Dakota
12.808
12.808 12.808
13.475 14.990 18.021 24.084 30.752
Tennessee
27.344
36.742 38.696
38.696 43.048 51.753 69.163 88.313
Texas
44.653
60.000 76.733
74.403 108.405 160.069 241.321 308.140
CRS-24

---

.


Tier I
Tier II
Tier III
Hypothetical $1.975
Billion
Just under $2.25
in FY1984
$2.14 Billion
Billion
$2.25 Billion $2.5 Billion
$3.0 Billion
$4.0 Billion
$5.1 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Utah
14.745
14.745 14.745
15.512 17.257 20.747 27.726 35.403
Vermont
11.747
11.747 11.747
12.358 13.748 16.528 22.088 28.204
Virginia
38.606
51.234 53.901
53.901 59.964 72.089 96.339 123.015
Washington
40.450
40.450 40.450
40.450 40.450 40.450 48.587 62.041
West
Virginia
17.864
17.864 17.864
18.794 20.908 25.136 33.591 42.892
Wisconsin
70.538
70.538 70.538
70.538 70.538 70.538 88.434 112.920
Wyoming
5.903
5.903 5.903
6.211 6.909 8.306 11.101 14.174
Total
1,972.33
2,109.839 2,219.690
2,219.690 2,469.351 2,968.674 3,967.320 5,065.830
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in April 2009.
Notes: These estimates take into account current law, which allows HHS to set aside funds out of regular LIHEAP funds for territories, leverage incentive grants and
Residential Energy Assistance Chal enge (REACH) grants and training and technical assistance. For each estimate, approximately 0.134% is al ocated to the territories, $27
million to leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and $300,000 to training and technical assistance. Differing allocations to leveraging incentive and REACH grants could
change state allotments.
CRS-25

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State
Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation Levels
Figure B-1 graphically illustrates state allotments for three “typical” types of states over a range
of appropriations from $0 to $5.1 billion. Represented are (1) a hold-harmless level state, (2) a
hold-harmless level and rate state, and (3) a state whose increased allocations are ratably reduced
in order to maintain allocations for the hold-harmless level and rate states.
In the figure, there are three vertical areas. These areas separate the three levels of appropriations
(Tiers I-III) that are triggers under current law and were explained previously in this report. The
figure also graphs the three basic types of states. Reading from top to bottom of Figure B-1, these
three types of states are as follows.
• Hold-Harmless Level Only States. These states are subject to only the hold-
harmless level provision. They do not qualify for the hold-harmless rate because
each state’s share of the regular funds at $2.25 billion is greater than 1%. An
example of a hold-harmless level only state is represented by the line that runs
from $0 to point G. The hold-harmless level is evident from point A to point F.
Here, despite increases in the appropriations level, the state allotment remains
fixed. In Table 3, these are the states that have a “Y” in the “Subject to hold-
harmless level?” column and a “N” in the “Subject to hold-harmless rate?”
column.
• Ratable Reduction States. These states are subject to a ratable reduction. Their
new formula rate is greater than their old, FY1984, rate. An example of these
states is depicted by the line that runs from $0 to point H. There is a small
decrease in state allotments at point D that is attributable to the increased
shortfall on the distribution of funds that the hold-harmless rate imposes. In
Table 3, these are the states that have a “N” in the “Subject to hold-harmless
level?” column and a “N” in the “Subject to hold-harmless rate?” column.
• Hold-Harmless Level and Rate States. These states are subject to both the hold-
harmless level and the hold harmless rate provisions. An example of a typical
level and rate state is shown by the line that runs from $0 to point I. The hold-
harmless level is evident by the fixed state allotment from point C to point E.
However, the (subtle) jump at exactly $2.25 billion signals that this state is
subject to the hold-harmless rate provision. After the allotment jump at $2.25
billion, the state’s allotment continues to increase (at a rate lower than the old
rate, but higher than the new rate). In Table 3, these are the states that have a
“Y” in the “Subject to hold-harmless level?” column and a “Y” in the “Subject
to hold-harmless rate?” column.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

.

Figure B-1. Estimated Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) Allocations at Various Hypothetical Appropriations
Level for Three Types of States
$120
Tier II hold-harmless level
Tier I
G
Tier III hold-harmless rate
$100
Hold-harmless
level only state
$80
H
)
A
ent
s
n
F
tm
io
Ratably
llo
ill
$60
m
reduced
te A
in
state
ta
Hold-harmless
S
($
level and rate
state
$40
D
I
$20
B
C
E
$0
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Appropriation
($ in millions)

Source: Figure created by CRS using allotment rates provided by HHS in April 2009.
CRS-27

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Appendix C. Actual LIHEAP Regular Fund
Allotments to the States, FY2006-FY2009, and
Estimated FY2010 Allotments
On May 7, 2009, the President released the FY2010 budget appendix, in which he proposed to
fund LIHEAP regular funds at $2.41 billion. Colum (f) of Table C-1 contains estimates of the
amount of funds that states would receive if this amount were to be appropriated for FY2010.
In the most recent regular fund appropriation for LIHEAP, the FY2009 Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329), Congress appropriated
$4.51 billion. However, of that amount, $840 million was to be distributed according to the “new”
formula and the remainder under the “old” formula proportions. Column (e) of Table C-1 shows
the amount of regular funds that each state received under P.L. 110-329.
In the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161), Congress appropriated $1.98
billion in LIHEAP regular funds.48 The first distribution to the states of the regular funds
appropriated in P.L. 110-161 occurred in December 2007; allocations were made on the basis of
the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula. The amount of funds that each state received under
this allotment is in column (c) of Table C-1. Then, on June 26, 2008, HHS announced that it
would distribute funds that were thought to have been allocated to leveraging incentive and
REACH grants in the FY2008 Appropriations Act as part of the regular fund formula grants.
Since the early 1990s, leveraging incentive and REACH grants have been made to states and
tribes on the basis of their ability to obtain non-LIHEAP resources for energy assistance
(leveraging incentive grants) and for increasing energy efficiency of low-income households
(REACH grants). In recent years, Congress has allocated about $27 million for these two funds.
However, in FY2008, P.L. 110-161 did not appropriate funds for leveraging incentive and
REACH grants. When HHS discovered that language to appropriate the funds was missing from
the law, it released the $26.7 million that would otherwise have been distributed as leveraging
incentive and REACH grants as part of the LIHEAP formula distribution. The addition of nearly
$27 million to the formula grants caused the funds to be released under the “new” LIHEAP
formula. Column (d) of Table C-1 shows the total amount of funds that each state received after
$26.7 million was added and funds were distributed under the new formula.
Column (b) of Table C-1 shows the amounts allocated to the states in FY2007 when Congress
appropriated $1.98 billion in regular LIHEAP funds as part of a year-long continuing resolution
(P.L. 110-5). Funds were distributed according to the proportions of the old formula. Column (a)
shows the amount allotted to each state in FY2006, when $2.48 billion was appropriated for
LIHEAP regular funds through two different laws. The FY2006 Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) appropriated $1.98 billion
for LIHEAP and a bill to make available funds in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for LIHEAP
(P.L. 109-204) appropriated $500 million.

48 P.L. 110-161 contained an across-the-board rescission of 1.747% that reduced the stated amounts appropriated for
most Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education programs. See Division G, Section 528 of P.L.
110-161. The $1.98 billion appropriation for regular funds was the amount available after this rescission.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allotments for
FY2006 through FY2009 and Estimated FY2010 Allotments
($ in millions)
FY2008
FY2010
FY2008
Allotments
Estimated
FY2006
FY2007
Allotments
After
Allotments
Allotments: Allotments:
Prior to
6-26-08:
FY2009
President’s
$2.48
$1.98
6-26-08:
$1.98
Allotments:
Request:
billiona
billionb
$1.98 billionc
billiond
$4.5 billione $2.41 billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Alabama
31.310
16.769
16.774
17.111
60.063
36.897
Alaska
12.572
10.704
10.707
10.828
23.568
13.684
Arizona
15.142
8.110
8.112
8.275
29.047
17.844
Arkansas
22.765
12.796
12.799
13.057
36.497
21.030
California
153.184
89.963
89.985
91.797
225.894
106.584
Colorado
31.729
31.367
31.375
31.729
63.474
31.729
Connecticut
47.809
40.920
40.930
41.754
95.783
52.476
Delaware
10.141
5.431
5.433
5.542
17.384
8.931
District of
Columbia
7.852
6.355
6.356
6.484
14.653
7.250
Florida
49.542
26.534
26.541
27.075
95.037
58.383
Georgia
39.170
20.979
20.985
21.407
75.141
46.160
Hawai
2.555
2.113
2.113
2.137
4.652
3.571
Idaho
14.370
12.235
12.238
12.376
26.939
13.958
Illinois
145.959 113.259 113.287 114.565
237.236
115.235
Indiana
53.986
51.280
51.293
51.872
103.609
51.872
Iowa
36.762
36.343
36.352
36.762
67.803
36.762
Kansas
26.798
16.690
16.695
17.031
45.349
23.280
Kentucky
44.347
26.686
26.693
27.230
68.353
29.585
Louisiana
32.010
17.144
17.148
17.494
57.196
31.513
Maine
26.815
26.509
26.516
26.815
49.457
26.815
Maryland
58.499
31.332
31.340
31.971
101.296
46.762
Massachusetts 82.797 81.853 81.873 82.797
162.981
89.402
Michigan
108.770
107.529
107.556
108.770
222.412
119.935
Minnesota
78.363
77.469
77.488
78.363
144.528
78.363
Mississippi
26.843
14.377
14.381
14.670
39.011
23.178
Missouri
59.541
45.240
45.251
45.762
103.541
47.927
Montana
16.856
14.351
14.355
14.517
31.598
16.372
Nebraska
21.109
17.973
17.978
18.180
39.573
20.504
Nevada
7.112
3.809
3.810
3.887
13.643
8.381
New
18.197
15.493
15.497
15.672
34.112
17.675
Congressional Research Service
29

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

FY2008
FY2010
FY2008
Allotments
Estimated
FY2006
FY2007
Allotments
After
Allotments
Allotments: Allotments:
Prior to
6-26-08:
FY2009
President’s
$2.48
$1.98
6-26-08:
$1.98
Allotments:
Request:
billiona
billionb
$1.98 billionc
billiond
$4.5 billione $2.41 billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Hampshire
New Jersey
77.540
75.988
76.007
76.865
166.690
95.058
New Mexico
11.925
10.153
10.156
10.360
24.901
11.583
New York
250.974
248.112
248.173
250.974
475.935
250.974
North
Carolina
69.038
36.976
36.985
37.730
123.243
65.822
North
Dakota
18.310
15.590
15.594
15.770
34.325
17.785
Ohio
122.259
100.194
100.219
101.350
220.588
116.421
Oklahoma
28.780
15.415
15.418
15.729
49.007
29.405
Oregon
24.591
24.311
24.317
24.591
45.355
24.591
Pennsylvania
134.810
133.273
133.306
134.810
274.925
142.594
Rhode Island
15.825
13.473
13.477
13.629
30.209
15.371
South
Carolina
24.867
13.318
13.322
13.590
47.702
29.304
South Dakota
14.871
12.662
12.665
12.808
27.878
14.445
Tennessee
46.363
27.033
27.039
27.584
73.723
41.482
Texas
82.421
44.144
44.155
45.044
158.110
97.129
Utah
17.120
14.576
14.580
14.745
32.094
16.629
Vermont
13.639
11.613
11.616
11.747
25.568
13.248
Virginia
71.259
38.166
38.175
38.944
118.084
57.781
Washington
40.450
39.988
39.998
40.450
74.603
40.450
West Virginia
23.818
17.660
17.665
17.935
40.584
20.147
Wisconsin
70.538
69.733
69.750
70.538
130.096
70.538
Wyoming
6.854
5.836
5.838
5.903
12.850
6.658
Total
2,449.16 1,949.83 1,950.314 1,977.027 4,476.302
2,379.473
Source: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final regular fund al ocations for FY2006 through
FY2009. FY2010 levels are CRS estimates based on data received from HHS in April 2009. Actual and estimated
allocations to the states include tribal allotments.
a. The total regular fund appropriation for FY2006 was $2.48 billion, $1.98 billion of which was appropriated
in P.L. 109-149, and $500 million in P.L. 109-204. Initially, P.L. 109-149 appropriated $2.0 billion for regular
funds, but the amount was subject to a 1% across-the-board rescission, resulting in a $1.98 billion
appropriation (P.L. 109-148). In addition, both training and technical assistance and the leveraging incentive
and REACH funds were reduced by 1% in column (a).
b. Congress approved a year-long continuing resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5), which was enacted on
February 15, 2007. The law provided that LIHEAP receive the same amount of funds for FY2007 that was
appropriated for FY2006 in P.L. 109-149, as reduced by a 1% rescission (P.L. 109-148).
Congressional Research Service
30

---

.
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law

c. The initial al otments for FY2008 were slightly greater than for FY2007, despite the similar appropriations
levels, due to a 1.747% across-the-board rescission for most Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education programs. See P.L. 110-161, Division G, Section 528. This meant that set asides for
leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and for training and technical assistance, were slightly reduced from
FY2007 levels.
d. On June 26, 208, HHS released an additional $26.7 million in formula grants to the states. These funds had
been set aside for leveraging incentive and REACH grants until HHS realized that Congress had not
appropriated these funds in P.L. 110-161. As a result, distributions were re-calculated under the “new”
LIHEAP formula, and additional funds were provided to the states.
e. Congress appropriated approximately $4.5 billion for LIHEAP as part of a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-
329). Of this amount, $840 million was allocated under the “new” LIHEAP formula, with the remainder
al ocated according to the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula.

Author Contact Information

Libby Perl

Analyst in Housing Policy
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806




Congressional Research Service
31

---