.

LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
May 22, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL31865

c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), established in 1981 as part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), is a program through which the federal
government makes annual grants to states, tribes, and territories to operate home energy
assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of
funds: regular funds (sometimes referred to as formula or block grant funds), which are allocated
to all states using a statutory formula, and emergency contingency funds, which are allocated to
one or more states at the discretion of the Administration in cases of emergency as defined by the
LIHEAP statute.
States may use LIHEAP funds to help low-income households pay for heating and cooling costs,
for crisis assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as counseling) to reduce the
need for energy assistance. The LIHEAP statute establishes federal eligibility for households with
incomes at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income, whichever is higher,
although states may set lower limits.
Available federal information regarding use of LIHEAP funds and households assisted is dated.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) releases annual LIHEAP Reports to
Congress, but the most recent report available is from FY2009. In its FY2016 budget
justifications, HHS reported limited preliminary LIHEAP data for FY2012. Of funds expended
for heating, cooling, crisis assistance, and weatherization, 57% of funds went to pay for heating
assistance, 8% was used for cooling aid, 24% went to crisis assistance, and 11% was used for
weatherization. (Note that these percentages do not account for administrative expenses or
services to reduce the need for energy assistance.) Also in FY2012, an estimated 6.6 million
households received an average of $374 in heating assistance for the year.
The President’s FY2016 budget proposed that LIHEAP be funded at $3.39 billion, the same
amount that was appropriated in FY2015. However, unlike FY2015, when all funds were
appropriated as regular funds, the FY2016 budget proposed that $200 million of the total be
appropriated for a new competitive grant, called the Utility Innovation Fund, to help reduce the
home energy burdens of low-income households. The remainder, $3.19 billion, would be
appropriated as regular funds.
In FY2015, Congress appropriated $3.39 billion for LIHEAP as part of the FY2015 Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). This was the same as the amount
distributed to LIHEAP grantees in FY2014, though not the same amount appropriated in
FY2014. In that year, Congress appropriated approximately $3.425 billion for LIHEAP, but $34
million was transferred elsewhere within HHS and not distributed to grantees. Prior to enactment
of P.L. 113-235, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education had proposed $3.39 billion to fund LIHEAP in FY2015,
exceeding the amount proposed by the President by $1 billion. (See Table B-1 for amounts
available to states, tribes, and territories pursuant to the FY2015 appropriations act.) As of the
date of this report, 1% of FY2015 funds had not yet been distributed.

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Rules and Benefits ............................................................................................................ 1
How May LIHEAP Funds Be Used? ......................................................................................... 1
Who May Receive Assistance?.................................................................................................. 4
How Is LIHEAP Administered? ................................................................................................ 5
Households Served .................................................................................................................... 6
Benefit Levels ............................................................................................................................ 8
Types of LIHEAP Funds ................................................................................................................ 10
Regular Funds .......................................................................................................................... 10
Tribal Allotments ............................................................................................................... 10
Funds for the Territories .................................................................................................... 11
Emergency Contingency Funds ............................................................................................... 11
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds ............................................................................... 13
Other Federal Sources of Funds Available for Energy Assistance .......................................... 14
LIHEAP Appropriations ................................................................................................................ 14
The LIHEAP Program Year ..................................................................................................... 14
Recent LIHEAP Funding ......................................................................................................... 15
FY2016 LIHEAP Funding ................................................................................................ 15
FY2015 LIHEAP Funding ................................................................................................ 16
Other Issues ................................................................................................................................... 18
Program Integrity ..................................................................................................................... 18
Performance Measures ............................................................................................................ 20

Tables
Table 1. Use of Federal LIHEAP Funds by States, FY2009 ............................................................ 3
Table 2. LIHEAP Households Receiving Heating and Winter Crisis Assistance ............................ 9
Table 3. FY2014-FY2015 Enacted and FY2016 Proposed LIHEAP Funding .............................. 18
Table A-1. Energy Assistance Funding Prior to LIHEAP .............................................................. 24
Table B-1. FY2015 Regular Fund Allotments to States, Tribes, and Territories ........................... 27
Table B-2. LIHEAP Funding by State: FY2007 to FY2014 .......................................................... 30
Table B-3. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2016 ........................................................................ 33

Appendixes
Appendix A. Legislative History of Energy Assistance ................................................................. 21
Appendix B. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels................................................................ 27

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

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

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Introduction
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established by Title XXVI of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a program through which the federal
government gives states, tribes, and territories annual grants to operate home energy assistance
programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute provides for two primary types of
program funding: regular funds (sometimes referred to as block grant or formula funds) and
emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allotted to states according to a formula
prescribed by the LIHEAP statute.1 Emergency 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 discusses LIHEAP program rules and benefits, including household
eligibility and how funds may be used, and presents the most recent data available from HHS
regarding household characteristics and benefit levels (see “Program Rules and Benefits”). The
second section of this report discusses each category of LIHEAP funds and how they are
distributed to states, tribes, and territories (see “Types of LIHEAP Funds”). The third section
discusses LIHEAP funding and appropriations (see “LIHEAP Appropriations”). Appendix A
describes the legislative history of energy assistance, leading up to and including the enactment of
LIHEAP (see “Legislative History of Energy Assistance”). Finally, Appendix B contains tables
showing recent LIHEAP allocations to the states, as well as appropriations for the program since
its inception.
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 that
receive federal funds (collectively referred to in this report as “grantees”). The law governing
LIHEAP sets up most requirements as part of a list of “assurances” that grantees must make when
they apply to HHS for funds.2 For example, grantees must make assurances about the sorts of
energy assistance they will provide, who will be served, and how funds will be administered. The
LIHEAP statute contains 16 assurances that govern various aspects of how the program operates
at the state, tribe, or territorial level. This section discusses how grantees implement the
assurances to provide energy assistance to low-income households.
How May LIHEAP Funds Be Used?
The LIHEAP statute outlines the ways in which grantees may use funds.3
• Funds may be used to help households meet their home energy costs by making
payments for heating and cooling expenses.4 All state grantees provide heating

1 See §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).
2 42 U.S.C. §8624.
3 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(1).
4 “Home energy” is defined at 42 U.S.C. §8622 as “a source of heating or cooling in residential dwellings.”
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

assistance to households, while a smaller number provide cooling assistance. See
Table 1.
• States must reserve funds to assist when households face an energy crisis,5
defined as “weather-related and supply shortage emergencies and other
household energy-related emergencies.”6 Within this definition, states determine
the circumstances under which they will provide assistance. For example,
generally states provide crisis assistance 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.7
• Funds may be used for low-cost weatherization projects. Grantees are limited to
using 15% of their allotment for weatherization unless a grantee has a waiver
from HHS for up to 25%.8
• Grantees may use funds to provide services to reduce the need for energy
assistance (e.g., needs assessment, counseling on how to reduce energy
consumption) limited to 5% of the allotment.9
• Funds may be used for program administration, limited to 10% of the allotment.10

A Note About LIHEAP Data
HHS publishes data about how states use LIHEAP funds as well as the number and characteristics of recipient
households as part of annual LIHEAP Reports to Congress and LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks. The most recent
LIHEAP Report to Congress is from FY2009 and the LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook is from FY2011. As a result,
comprehensive information about LIHEAP is dated.
As part of the FY2016 Congressional budget justifications for LIHEAP, HHS included some preliminary FY2012 data
regarding use of funds and households served.11 In FY2012, of funds expended for heating, cooling, crisis assistance,
and weatherization, 57% of funds went to pay for heating assistance, 8% was used for cooling aid, 24% went to crisis
assistance, and 11% was used for weatherization. (Note that these percentages do not account for administrative
expenses or services to reduce the need for energy assistance, which were not provided in the budget justifications.)
Also in FY2012, an estimated 6.6 mil ion households received an average of $374 in heating assistance for the year.

The greatest share of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home heating costs. In FY2009 (the most
recent year for which detailed HHS data are available), approximately 53% of all LIHEAP funds
was used to provide heating assistance; all states (including the District of Columbia) provided

5 42 U.S.C. §8623(c).
6 42 U.S.C. §8622(3).
7 For the state definitions of “crisis” see the compilation at the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/
FY2014/Crisis.pdf. The LIHEAP Clearinghouse, via a contract with HHS, collects information about how states
operate their energy assistance programs.
8 The limitation on use of weatherization funds is at 42 U.S.C. §8624(k).
9 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(16).
10 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(9).
11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FY2016 Congressional Budget Justifications for the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/2016_acf_cj.PDF.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

some heating assistance.12 All states also offered crisis assistance, most of which was used for
heating needs. In FY2009, 19% of LIHEAP funds was used to provide winter/year-round crisis
assistance in 48 states and summer crisis assistance in six states.13 Also in FY2009, 5% of funds
went for cooling aid (offered by 17 states); 10% of total LIHEAP funds was used for
weatherization services (provided by 49 states); 8% of available funds went for administration
and planning purposes (51 states); and 1% of the FY2009 funds was used to offer services to
reduce the need for energy assistance (provided by 26 states).14
In FY2009, funding for LIHEAP increased significantly compared to FY2008, from $2.6 billion
to $5.1 billion. In nearly all categories, funding percentages remained approximately the same,
with the exception of cooling programs. The number of states operating cooling programs
increased from 15 to 17, with expenditures increasing from 3% to 5% of the total. The number of
states offering weatherization services increased from 44 to 49 with expenditures remaining about
10% of total funding.
Table 1. Use of Federal LIHEAP Funds by States, FY2009
Dollars
Households
Percentage of
Obligated
Number of
Assistedb
Use of Funds
Funds
($ in millions)a
States
(in thousands)
Heating
53%
$2,779
51
6,642
Cooling 5
252
17
703
Winter/Year Round Crisis
Assistance
914 51d 2,029
19c
Summer Crisis
49
6
164
Weatherization 10
523
49
141
Administration 8
401
51

Services to Reduce Reliance
1 62 26 —
on Home Energy
Carry Over to Next Fiscal
4 212 41 —
Year
Source: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2009, June 6, 2014, p. 20
(percentage of funds, dol ars obligated, and number of states), p. 35 (number of households assisted and number
of states for summer crisis), and p. ii of the executive summary (dollars obligated for winter/year round crisis and
summer crisis).
Notes: “States” includes the District of Columbia.
a. Total dol ars obligated include funds that were carried over from FY2008.
b. Note that the numbers of households assisted by category are not unduplicated. For example, HHS estimates
that two thirds of households that receive winter/year round crisis assistance also receive heating assistance.

12 Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2009 of $5.2 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 2009
, June 6, 2014, p. 20, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/
rpt_fy09_liheap_rtc_final_052114_2.pdf (hereinafter, FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress).
13 Four states, Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Massachusetts, provide all crisis assistance as expedited heating
assistance to assist households in fuel crisis situations. Ibid., Table I-8, pp. 21-23.
14 Ibid., p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

c. HHS provides the combined percentage for crisis assistance.
d. Four states, Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Massachusetts, use expedited heating assistance to assist
households in fuel crisis situations.
Who May Receive Assistance?
Basic Eligibility: Federal law sets out parameters that grantees must follow in establishing
eligibility for LIHEAP assistance. The statute establishes households as the unit that is eligible for
LIHEAP assistance (versus a family). A household consists of an “individual or group of
individuals who are living together as one economic unit for whom residential energy is
customarily purchased in common or who make undesignated payments for energy in the form of
rent.”15 Grantees must have a system in place for a household denied assistance to appeal.16
Eligibility Based on Income: Grantees have the option of setting LIHEAP
eligibility for households at or below 150% of the federal poverty income
guidelines or, if greater, 60% of the state median income.17 States may adopt
lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the poverty
guidelines may be considered ineligible.
Eligibility Based on Receipt of Other Benefits: Grantees 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), benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), or certain needs-tested
veterans’ programs.18
The LIHEAP statute does not impose an asset test in establishing eligibility, but states may
choose to limit client assets. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other
state or federal aid programs.19 For example, this means that a LIHEAP payment would not count
toward the income or resources of a family applying for SNAP, housing assistance, or other types
of assistance programs. Each year, the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, through a contract with HHS,
makes available state eligibility guidelines on its website.20
Vulnerable and High-Need Populations: The LIHEAP statute requires that grantees conduct
outreach to eligible households, “especially” households with elderly individuals, individuals
with disabilities, or that have high energy burdens (home energy expenditures divided by
income), to ensure that they are aware of LIHEAP availability.21

15 42 U.S.C. §8622(5).
16 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(13).
17 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B). Each year HHS publishes updated poverty levels and state median income thresholds and
the LIHEAP Clearinghouse publishes them on their website, http://liheap.ncat.org/delivery/income_elibility.htm.
18 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(A). Eligible veterans’ benefits are compensation to parents for the service-connected death of
a child, to veterans with non-service connected disabilities, to the surviving spouse of a veteran, and to children of a
deceased veteran. In each case, benefits are need-based and are reduced based on the beneficiary’s income.
19 42 U.S.C. §8624(f).
20 For income guidelines, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2014/POP14.htm. For a list of states that use receipt of
other benefits to establish eligibility, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2013/autoeligtable.htm. For states that use
asset tests, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2014/assets.htm.
21 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(3).
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Grantees must further ensure that households with the lowest incomes, together with the highest
home energy need in relation to income, receive the highest level of assistance.22 This provision
was added to the law as part of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-252) with the
intention of ensuring that both income and energy burden together were considered so that
grantees would target households that are “most drastically burdened” and who have the “highest
health risk.”23
Owners and Renters: Under the LIHEAP statute, grantees must treat owners and renters
“equitably.”24 The way in which renters pay utilities may differ from homeowners, where, in
some cases, payments for heating and cooling are included in rent rather than paid directly by the
tenant. However, this should not affect eligibility for LIHEAP.
In addition, the issue of how to treat renters living in housing subsidized through the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been raised in the past. In general, HUD housing
subsidies are based both on rent levels and reasonable utility expenses. Tenants pay
approximately 30% of their income toward the total rent and utility costs, and HUD subsidizes
the remainder of the total. In cases where tenants pay their utilities directly (rather than as part of
their rent), they are reimbursed for the HUD share of utilities through a utility allowance, which
generally comes in the form of a rent reduction. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation to make
clear that states may not automatically deny LIHEAP benefits to subsidized tenants who pay their
utilities directly and receive utility allowances.25 However, states may take utility allowances into
account when determining the amount of benefits subsidized renters may receive. On its website,
the LIHEAP Clearinghouse compiles state policies regarding renters.26
How Is LIHEAP Administered?
Federal rules allow grantees to decide the mix and dollar range of benefits, choose how benefits
are provided (e.g., to utilities or directly to households), and decide which agencies will
administer the program. Grantees provide details to HHS about program operation via a state plan
submitted each year,27 and they are to provide a method for public participation in the state plan’s
development.28
The state agency administering LIHEAP is to coordinate with other low-income programs,
including the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).29 To the extent
possible, grantees are encouraged to follow WAP rules in order to increase consistency between
the two weatherization components.30 LIHEAP grantees are also required to establish fiscal

22 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(5).
23 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1994,
report to accompany S. 2000, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., April 19, 1994, S.Rept. 103-251, p. 55.
24 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(8).
25 See §927 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) as amended by P.L. 103-185, a
bill to provide increased flexibility to States in carrying out the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
26 See http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2012/subsidize.htm.
27 42 U.S.C. §8624(c).
28 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(12).
29 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(4).
30 Ibid. For more information about the Weatherization Assistance Program, see CRS Report R42147, DOE
Weatherization Program: A Review of Funding, Performance, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies
, by Fred Sissine.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

control and accounting procedures, which include a way of monitoring the assistance that is
provided.31
At the state level, many LIHEAP
administrative functions such as intake and
Community Action Agencies
application processing are often delegated to
Community Action Agencies (CAAs) have been a
local level agencies. In the early years of
prominent part of administering energy assistance
programs since the 1970s. CAAs are community-based
energy assistance, prior to the existence of
organizations created as part of the Economic
LIHEAP, funds were administered by local
Opportunity Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-452), the law that
Community Action Agencies (CAAs). This
established the War on Poverty. CAAs were authorized
relationship continued when LIHEAP was
to administer a number of programs that assist low-
enacted in 1981. The LIHEAP statute provides
income households. In addition to administering energy
and weatherization assistance programs, CAAs run
that, if a state designates local agencies to
programs to assist families with housing, child
administer the program, then they agree to
development (including Head Start), food and nutrition,
“give special consideration” to public or
senior services, legal affairs, community development,
private nonprofit agencies receiving funds for
and education, among others. More than 1,000 CAAs
low-income energy assistance or
administer programs nationwide, and in many states
continue to administer LIHEAP funds.
weatherization prior to LIHEAP’s
enactment.32 According to the LIHEAP
Clearinghouse, in 30 states CAAs are involved in administering funds, another 13 states have
local programs administered by the counties, and the remaining states are either administered at
the state level or by nonprofit groups.33 In most cases, LIHEAP benefits are given directly to
utilities or fuel oil suppliers to be applied to recipients’ accounts rather than directly to recipients.
An exception to this may occur in cases of renters whose utility payments are included in rent and
who do not have their own account.
Households Served
Households Receiving Nominal
LIHEAP Benefits
For approximately five years, some states have
distributed nominal LIHEAP benefits to households
(ranging from $1 to $5) in order to leverage additional
SNAP benefits. This practice is sometimes referred to as
“heat-and-eat.” In 2014, the Farm Bill raised the amount
of the LIHEAP benefit required to leverage additional
funds to “greater than $20 annual y.” It is unclear the
extent to which HHS data on LIHEAP recipient
households include those receiving nominal benefits. In
the FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress, three states
acknowledged that they gave nominal benefits, and these

31 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(10).
32 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(6).
33 See the LIHEAP Clearinghouse website, http://liheap.ncat.org/admin/admintro.htm.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Unlike some other federal assistance
recipient households were not included in the total
programs, such as Medicaid or the
households reported to HHS. These were Connecticut,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Maine, and Oregon.34
(SNAP), simply being eligible for LIHEAP
does not entitle a household to LIHEAP benefits. Available benefits are limited by the amount
that Congress appropriates each year, so the number of households that are served in a given year
depends both on appropriations and how grantees use their funding.
In FY2009, the most recent year for which detailed HHS data are available, increased
appropriations resulted in a record number of households receiving heating and/or winter crisis
assistance (the bulk of LIHEAP assistance that is provided). In FY2009, Congress appropriated
$5.10 billion, compared to $2.59 billion in FY2008. An estimated 7.4 million households
received assistance in FY2009,35 an increase of 2 million compared to FY2008, when an
estimated 5.4 million households were served. Prior to FY2009, the most households were served
shortly after LIHEAP was enacted, when approximately 6.8 million households received heating
and/or winter crisis assistance in FY1983. 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 to the current level.
For the number of households receiving LIHEAP from FY2000 through FY2009, see Table 2.
The same trend can be seen in the percentage of federally eligible households that receive heating
and/or winter crisis assistance. In FY1983, the 6.8 million households that received funds
represented 31% of federally eligible households. By FY2000, the number of federally eligible
households receiving LIHEAP heating and/or winter crisis assistance had dropped to 13%. Since
FY2003, the percentage of federally eligible households receiving assistance hovered between
14% and 16%, settling at 16% for FY2006 through FY2008. However, in FY2009, with increased
funding for LIHEAP, 21% of those households federally eligible under the LIHEAP statute were
served. Note that due to a provision in the FY2009 appropriations act (P.L. 110-329) that allowed
states to increase household eligibility to 75% of state median income in that year, only 16% of
those eligible under the appropriations law were served in FY2009.36
Prior to FY2009, the number of households receiving cooling and/or summer crisis assistance
reached a high point of 700,000 recipients in FY2006. In FY2009, with increased funding,
900,000 households received cooling assistance.37
HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance in FY2009, about
31% had at least one member 60 years of age or older; about 32% had at least one member with a
disability; and 22% included at least one child five years of age or younger.38 Households may
include members in more than one of the three categories. Although some states set LIHEAP

34 As part of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79), Congress imposed a minimum LIHEAP payment of more than $20 per
household to leverage additional SNAP benefits. For more information about heat-and-eat, see CRS Report R42591,
The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by Randy
Alison Aussenberg and Libby Perl.
35 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2009
, September 2011, p. 30 (hereinafter, FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook). This
estimate attempts to remove duplication among households that received both heating and winter crisis assistance.
36 Ibid.
37 See the FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 31, and the FY2006 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
38 FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 55.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

eligibility as high as 60% of state median income, on average, LIHEAP households served have
very low incomes. In FY2009, as reported by the states, 67% of LIHEAP-recipient households
had income at or below 100% of poverty.39
Benefit Levels
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. 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).
The average LIHEAP benefit varies by state. For example, in FY2009, the most recent year in
which state-by-state data are available, the average heating benefit nationwide was $418, with a
range from $144 (Kentucky) to $1,826 (Alaska).40 When heating is combined with winter crisis
benefits, the average nationwide benefit in FY2009 rose to $505.41 The average benefit for
cooling assistance, available in 17 states in FY2009, was $359, ranging from $51 (Indiana) to
$680 (Texas). With the increase in LIHEAP appropriations in FY2009, average benefits increased
compared to the previous fiscal year. In FY2008, the average heating benefit was $293, the
average combined heating/winter crisis benefit was $363, and the average cooling benefit was
$199.
One way of looking at LIHEAP benefits over time is to measure them in constant dollars. Each
year, the HHS LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook presents average heating and winter crisis
benefits in nominal dollars and constant 1981 dollars (the year in which LIHEAP was enacted).
Until FY2009, when funding for the program increased by more than $2 billion compared to the
previous fiscal year, the general trend in the constant dollar value of LIHEAP benefits since the
program’s beginning had been one of decline. In FY1981, the average heating and winter crisis
benefit, measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $213.42 By FY1998, it had declined to $117, and
although the average benefit reached $187 in FY2001, it generally declined again thereafter, with
the exception of $171 in FY2006, when funding was higher than in the immediately preceding
and subsequent years. In FY2009, the constant dollar value of the average LIHEAP heating and
winter crisis benefit increased by about $58 from the previous year, to $209.43 By FY2011, with
funding down slightly, the average benefit in constant dollars was $184.44 (See Table 2.)

39 Ibid., p. 45.
40 Ibid., pp. 40-42.
41 Ibid. Note that the FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook reports this average as $502.
42 FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
43 Ibid.
44 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2011
, June 2014, p. 32, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/fy2011_hen_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Table 2. LIHEAP Households Receiving Heating and Winter Crisis Assistance
FY2000-FY2011


Households Assisted
Average Benefits
Percentage
Households
of Federally
Households
Federally
Eligible
Funding
Receiving
Eligible for
Households
Constant
Fiscal
Distributeda
Assistance
Assistance
Receiving
Nominal
1981
Year
($ in millions)
(millions)
(millions)
Assistance
Dollars
Dollarsb
2000 $1,844
3.9 29.4 13% $270 $140
2001 1,856
4.8 30.4 16 364 187
2002 1,800
4.4 32.7 13 291 147
2003 1,988
4.8 34.5 14 312 154
2004 1,889
5.0 35.4 14 277 132
2005 2,162
5.3 34.8 15 304 140
2006 3,160
5.5 34.4 16 385 171
2007 2,161
5.3 33.6 16 320 139
2008 2,591
5.4 33.5 16 362c 151
2009 5,100
7.4 35.0d 21 502e 209
2010 5,100
8.1 37.1d 22 467 191
2011 4,701
7.6 40.1 19 462 184
Source: Data regarding households assisted, federal y eligible households, and benefit levels for FY2000 to
FY2011 are drawn from the LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks for FY1998 through FY2011.
a. See Table B-3.
b. Constant 1981 dol ars are used by HHS to measure the value of LIHEAP benefits over time.
c. Note that the FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress reports this average as $363.
d. In FY2009 and FY2010, the appropriations bills (P.L. 110-329) and (P.L. 111-117) gave states the option of
increasing LIHEAP household eligibility to 75% of state median income. This meant that approximately 45
million households were eligible for LIHEAP in FY2009 and nearly 48 million in FY2010. However, for the sake
of comparison, this table includes only those households federally eligible under the LIHEAP statute (those
with incomes at or below the greater of 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income).
e. Note that the FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress reports this average as $505.
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, has fluctuated over the years. While the average
benefit in 1981 was $129, in the years that followed the average benefit in constant 1981 dollars
declined as low as $57 in FY1983 and $49 in FY1990. However, the average benefit grew from
FY1990 levels, and by FY2000 and FY2001 the average benefit had reached $107. In recent
years, between FY2004 and FY2008, the constant dollar value has ranged from $72 (in FY2008)
to $105 (in FY2006). After FY2009, when funding for LIHEAP increased significantly, the
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

constant dollar value of cooling and summer crisis benefits rose to $142.45 In FY2011, the
average constant dollar benefit was $126.46
Types of LIHEAP Funds
The LIHEAP statute authorizes several separate distributions of LIHEAP funds.47 The bulk of
funds are distributed as “regular” funds, sometimes also referred to as formula or block grant
funds. The regular funds are distributed via formula to the states and the District of Columbia.
Tribes receive a share of state funding, while a percentage of regular funds is set aside for
territories. The LIHEAP statute also authorizes emergency contingency funds, which may be
distributed to one or more states, tribes, or territories at the discretion of the Administration. The
statute also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for Leveraging Incentive grants, which are
distributed to grantees that leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance programs.
And a portion of Leveraging Incentive grants may be used for competitive Residential Energy
Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants that grantees may use for various purposes that improve
the energy security of vulnerable low-income families.
Despite the different distribution methods, grantees may use each form of funding for the eligible
activities under LIHEAP (e.g., heating and cooling assistance, emergency crisis assistance, and
weatherization).
Regular Funds
When LIHEAP was created in 1981, the only funds available were regular funds, which were
distributed to the states via a formula developed under the predecessor program to LIHEAP, the
Low Income Energy Assistance Program (discussed in Appendix A of this report). Regular funds
continue to be distributed to the states via a formula, though it was changed in 1984 as part of the
Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558). The history and operation of the formula are
complicated, and the issues are addressed in a separate report, CRS Report RL33275, The
LIHEAP Formula
, by Libby Perl. Tribes and territories are not directly included in the LIHEAP
formula distribution, and the way in which they receive regular funds is described in more detail,
below. Regular funds have not been authorized since FY2007, when they were authorized at $5.1
billion (P.L. 109-58).
Tribal Allotments
Indian tribes and tribal organizations have the option to request that they receive and administer
their own allotments of LIHEAP funds.48 Tribal allotments may be based on the number of low-
income households (as defined by the LIHEAP statute) residing on a reservation and any adjacent
trust land as a proportion of all low-income households in the state. Alternatively, a tribe may
work out its funding level with the state and enter into an agreement for an amount to be

45 FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
46 FY2011 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 32.
47 42 U.S.C. §8621.
48 42 U.S.C. §8623(d).
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

allocated. A tribe’s allotment is then taken from the state’s LIHEAP allocation. There are 162
tribes in 25 states that administer their own LIHEAP funds.49
Funds for the Territories
The LIHEAP statute provides that at least one-tenth, but not more than one-half of 1% of the total
regular fund appropriation must be set aside for energy assistance in American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. HHS
sets the exact percentage of funds that goes to the territories. In FY2014, HHS set aside 0.5% of
funding for the territories, the first time that funding had reached the maximum allowed by the
statute. This set-aside continued in FY2015.
Prior to FY2014, and since the inception of the program, the set-aside for territories had been
approximately 0.134% of regular funds. This percentage was based on the amount of funding that
the territories received under LIEAP, the predecessor program to LIHEAP. For that program,
Congress made $2.5 million available to the territories. Prior to implementation of LIHEAP, in
1981, the territories asked HHS that more funding be provided.50 However, according to HHS, it
decided to provide the same approximate percentage of LIHEAP funding to the territories as was
provided as part of LIEAP, concluding that
[HHS] should retain the funding levels originally proposed, since they are based on a
congressional determination of need for the 1981 program, and the comments did not include
any information demonstrating that changed conditions required a higher relative level of
funding as compared to the States than existed in 1981.51
HHS allocates funds among the five territories based on population, with Puerto Rico receiving
approximately 90% of funds. For the most recent allocations to the territories, see the end of
Table B-1.
Emergency Contingency Funds
Unlike LIHEAP regular funds, emergency contingency funds are not distributed by formula.
Instead, they are to be distributed at the Administration’s discretion “to meet the additional home
energy assistance needs of one or more states arising from a natural disaster or other
emergency.”52 The two terms are defined as follows:
• “Emergency” includes 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.”53

49 Based on tribes receiving LIHEAP funding in FY2014.
50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Block Grant Programs: Final Rules,” 47 Federal Register 29485,
July 6, 1982.
51 Ibid.
52 42 U.S.C. §8621(e). Initially, the terms “natural disaster” and “emergency” were not defined in the statute, and,
several years later, in 1998, as part of P.L. 105-285, Congress amended the statute to include definitions.
53 42 U.S.C. §8622(1).
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

• A “natural disaster” is defined as “a weather event (relating to hot or cold
weather),” floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, or other events
as determined by the Secretary.54
Since the creation of the emergency contingency fund, funds have been released to grantees for
various reasons, including energy price increases, extreme periods of hot or cold weather, and
damage caused by natural disasters. In cases of natural disasters, grantees may be flexible in the
ways they assist households, particularly those without power due to damaged or destroyed
homes. According to HHS guidance, funds may be used to pay for temporary shelter, for
transportation to shelter, coats and blankets, as well as for utility reconnection and equipment
replacement.55
Congress has appropriated emergency contingency funds in every year since the funds have been
authorized with the exceptions of FY2003 (when funds appropriated in a previous year were
available for distribution), and FY2012 through FY2015. In addition, just because Congress
appropriates funds does not mean that the Administration releases them to grantees. In a number
of years that Congress appropriated funds, HHS released only a portion of the funds available
(see Table B-3).
Some form of emergency contingency funds was first appropriated in FY1991, although the funds
were not authorized until enactment of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-252).
Like the genesis of federal energy assistance programs in general, appropriations for energy-
related emergencies grew out of high heating oil prices coupled with cold temperatures.56
Congress appropriated $200 million in FY1991 and referred to the program as an “Energy
Emergency Contingency Fund” (see P.L. 101-517).57 Congress permanently authorized
emergency contingency funding at $600 million in FY1994, and they have remained authorized at
that same level.
Emergency Designation
On occasion, LIHEAP emergency contingency funds were designated as “emergency” for
purposes of budget scoring. The LIHEAP authorizing statute provided that emergency
contingency funds would be designated as emergency for purposes of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended by the Budget Enforcement
Act (BEA) of 1990 (enacted as part of P.L. 101-508).58 The BEA used spending limits to reduce

54 42 U.S.C. §8622(7).
55 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services, LIHEAP Disaster Relief,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheap-disaster-relief, accessed November 15, 2012.
56 During the FY1991 appropriations process, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee noted that “[e]xtraordinary
circumstances in world oil markets pose a serious risk that low-income households will face skyrocketing home energy
prices in the 1990-1991 heating season.” U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Dire Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance, Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation Administration, and
Other Urgent Needs, and Transfers, and Reducing Funds Budgeted for Military Spending Act
, report to accompany
H.R. 4404, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., March 27, 1990, H.Rept. 101-434, pp. 17-18.
57 Funds were to be made available if the average price of heating oil for a given month exceeded the four-year average
for the same month by 20% or more. Funds were distributed to all states but Hawaii in January 1991 based on
December 1990 heating oil prices. Pursuant to the law, states received funds based on the percentage of low-income
households using heating oil, liquified petroleum gas, and kerosene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1991, October 1992, pp. 59-60.
58 For more information, see CRS Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in Effect Between 1985 and 2002, by
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

the deficit. However, funds that were designated as an emergency by both the President and in
statute were not included in the spending limits.59 Congress first designated emergency
contingency funds as “emergency” for budgetary purposes in FY1992 and FY1993 appropriations
acts, and then incorporated the language into the LIHEAP statute upon the inclusion of the
emergency contingency fund in the law.60 The BEA expired in 2002, and while the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) further amended the law with new procedures to reduce the
deficit, the statutory reference to emergency contingency funds as an emergency designation
pursuant to the BEA is no longer operative.61
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds
LIHEAP does not require grantees to match the federal funds they receive. However, a portion of
LIHEAP funds may be used for grants based on the amount of outside funds that grantees obtain
for energy assistance. These Leveraging Incentive grants were authorized in 1990, when P.L. 101-
501 amended the LIHEAP statute to provide a separate funding authorization of $50 million ($30
million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for incentive grants to states that
leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP programs.62 Such resources might include
negotiated lower energy rates for low-income households or separate state funds for energy
assistance. States are awarded incentive funds in a given fiscal year on the basis of a formula that
takes into account their previous fiscal year’s 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 Leveraging
Incentive grants 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 the 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 grants have not been authorized since FY2004. In practice, Congress has regularly
funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set aside out of annual regular
fund appropriations. However, from FY2013 through FY2015, funds were not set aside for
Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants.

(...continued)
Megan S. Lynch.
59 See §251(b)(2)(D) of P.L. 101-508, later extended as part of P.L. 103-66.
60 The language reads “Funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection are hereby designated to be emergency
requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
except that such funds shall be made available only after the submission to Congress of a formal budget request by the
President (for all or a part of the appropriation pursuant to this subsection) that includes a designation of the amount
requested as an emergency requirement as defined in such Act.” See 42 U.S.C. §8621(e).
61 After expiration of the BEA, there were three years in which the appropriations language designated emergency
contingency funds as “emergency” for purposes of the budget resolutions (these were FY2005, FY2008, and FY2009).
Budget resolutions establish allocations for appropriators. For more information, see CRS Report R40472, The Budget
Resolution and Spending Legislation
, by Megan S. Lynch.
62 42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Other Federal Sources of Funds Available for Energy Assistance
For a time, beginning in the mid-1980s, additional funds were available to LIHEAP grantees via
funds recovered as the result of oil company overcharges that violated price controls instituted in
1973 as part of the Emergency Fuels and Energy Allocation Act (P.L. 93-159). In cases where
aggrieved parties could not be identified for reimbursement, funds were distributed to states to be
used for energy efficiency purposes, including LIHEAP.63 Oil overcharge funds that were
allocated to LIHEAP reached a peak of $174 million in FY1989, and had diminished to $200,000
by FY2008, the most recent year for which HHS has data available.64
In addition, the Social Services Block Grant program allows states to transfer up to 10% of funds
to provide low-income home energy assistance, among other purposes.65 The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program also gives states the discretion to use funds for home
heating and cooling costs.66
LIHEAP Appropriations
The LIHEAP Program Year
The federal government’s fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30, is not ideally
placed for a program like LIHEAP. Most states release the bulk of their LIHEAP funds during the
winter months, shortly after federal appropriations are to be finalized. Further, in recent years,
appropriations often have not been finalized until well after the fiscal year is under way. This may
require states to enter the winter months without certainty as to the amount of funds they will
receive.
LIHEAP was not always funded exactly in concert with the federal fiscal year. Beginning in
FY1990, for four years (through FY1993) Congress provided “delayed funding” for the program,
making a portion of funds available on the last day of the fiscal year. The funds were for purposes
of “starting up activities” for the following winter’s program.67 These amounts were small
initially, totaling $60 million in FY1990 (P.L. 101-166) and $75 million in FY1991 (P.L. 101-
517), but growing to $406 million in FY1992 (P.L. 102-170) and $688 million in FY1993 (P.L.
102-394).
Then, in FY1993, Congress amended the LIHEAP statute to change the way that the program was
funded, recognizing the difficulty for grantees in running a program with little advance notice of

63 For example, §155 of the FY1983 Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 97-377) specified that the
Department of Energy distribute $200 million to the states to be used for five energy efficiency programs, including
LIHEAP. Funds were also made available via court orders and settlements. See, for example, Chuck Hill, Heather
Gonzalez, and Roger Colton, “Oil Overcharge and Percentage-of-Income Payment Plan Developments,” Clearinghouse
Review
, vol. 22, no. 2 (June 1988), pp. 146-148.
64 FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress, pp. 2-3.
65 42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
66 42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).
67 See S.Rept. 102-104, p. 180, to accompany H.R. 2707, an appropriations bill that was vetoed, though the same
LIHEAP funding went into final bill.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

the funding level for the coming year.68 As part of the Augustus F. Hawkins Human Services
Reauthorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501), Congress provided that LIHEAP be funded on a
program year cycle, from July 1st to June 30th, with appropriations made in the fiscal year in
which the program year started. This funding structure is referred to as “forward funding.”
According to the Senate Committee report (where the forward funding provision originated),
forward funding was meant to give grantees time to plan once they knew how much funding
would be available.
Despite the statutory language, Congress never actually appropriated funds for a program year as
forward funding, and instead provided advance appropriations for LIHEAP. Advance
appropriations are simply made for the fiscal year subsequent to the year in which funds are
appropriated. From FY1994 through FY2001, Congress provided advance appropriations for
LIHEAP in every year but one (FY1997). When Congress enacted the FY2001 appropriations
law, it did not provide advance appropriations for FY2002. While Congress acknowledged the
benefits of advance funding,69 it appears that the failure to provide advance funding was due to
budget caps for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill.70 Since
FY2002, LIHEAP appropriations have been made for the current fiscal year.
Recent LIHEAP Funding
FY2016 LIHEAP Funding
The President proposed $3.39 billion for FY2016 LIHEAP funding, the same amount that was
appropriated in FY2015. However, of the amount proposed in the budget for FY2016, $200
million would be dedicated to a “Utility Innovation Fund”—a competitive grant to be used to
help LIHEAP recipients reduce their energy burdens. The remainder, $3.19 billion, would be
appropriated as regular funds, of which $27 million would fund leveraging incentive and REACH
grants and $3 million would go to training and technical assistance.
Several other notable proposals in the President’s budget include:

68 “[T]he funding cycle for LIHEAP under current law is a major obstacle to effective state planning and management
of an efficient and timely winter heating or crisis program. LIHEAP funds are designed to be expended in the season
when home energy costs are incurred and in time to avoid household energy emergencies. However, in recent years, the
Department had most often been without a final appropriations figure by the October 1 program start date. States must
begin their planning for the program well before the level of funding is established. As a result of funding uncertainties,
benefits cannot be set, and especially when major cuts are proposed, eligibility levels cannot be determined.” U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act, report to
accompany H.R. 4151, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., August 3, 1990, S.Rept. 101-421, p. 75.
69 Instead the report stated that the “conferees fully intend” to provide FY2002 funding totaling $1.7 billion. Making
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2001
, conference report to accompany
H.R. 4577, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., December 15, 2000, H.Rept. 106-1033, pp. 153-154.
70 See, for example, a discussion on the Senate floor about the Senate Committee on Labor, HHS, and Education
Appropriations failing to include advance funding for FY2002: “As you know, this is a very difficult year for
appropriators. The budget caps are very tight, and this bill contains many valuable programs.” Senator Spector, “The
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2001,”
Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 9 (June 30, 2000), p. 13326.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

• Allowing all funds appropriated for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants to
be set aside for REACH grants (compared to 25% in the LIHEAP statute71).
• Increasing the amount that states can use for weatherization to 40% of their
allocation and requiring that each state use at least 10% of their grants for
weatherization. Under the LIHEAP statute, there is no minimum requirement for
weatherization (and some states use no funds for this purpose), and the maximum
allowed for weatherization, with a waiver from HHS, is 25%.72
• Re-introducing a proposal, last seen in the FY2011 budget, to fund LIHEAP
emergency contingency funds using mandatory funding that would be triggered
by energy price increases, extreme cold, or increases in the number of households
participating in SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
FY2015 LIHEAP Funding
LIHEAP was funded in FY2015 as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235), enacted on December 16, 2014. Prior to enactment of P.L.
113-235, LIHEAP and other federal programs were funded by three continuing resolutions.73 The
appropriations bill provided a total of $3.39 billion for LIHEAP, all appropriated as regular funds.
Of the total, P.L. 113-235 directed that $491 million be distributed according to the provisions of
the “new” LIHEAP formula, and the remainder, approximately $2.9 billion, according to the
proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula. (For more information about the way LIHEAP funds
are distributed according to the “new” and “old” formulas, see CRS Report RL33275, The
LIHEAP Formula
, by Libby Perl.) The appropriations bill also provided that not more than
$2.988 million be available for training and technical assistance; no level was specified for
Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants.
The amount appropriated for LIHEAP in FY2015 is the same amount that was distributed to
grantees in FY2014. In that year, Congress appropriated $3.425 billion for LIHEAP as part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76). Approximately 1% of funds (about $34 million)
was not distributed to grantees and was transferred elsewhere within HHS.74 Pursuant to an
appropriations provision, the HHS Secretary has authority to transfer appropriated funds among
accounts, not to exceed 1% of the discretionary funds appropriated.75
On October 15, 2014, HHS announced the distribution of more than $3 billion in LIHEAP funds
pursuant to the first continuing resolution. After enactment of P.L. 113-235, HHS announced the
distribution of an additional $302 million on January 21, 2015. As of the date of this report, about
1% of the appropriation ($34 million) had not been distributed. As in the two previous years,
FY2013 and FY2014, this may be due to funds being transferred within HHS. See Table B-1 for
FY2015 distributions to the states, tribes, and territories.

71 42 U.S.C. §8626b(b).
72 42 U.S.C. §8624(k).
73 These were P.L. 113-164 through December 11, 2014, P.L. 113-202 through December 15, 2014, and P.L. 113-203
through December 17, 2014.
74 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Dear Colleague
Notice Final Budget FY 2014
, March 26, 2014, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheap-dear-colleague-
notice-final-budget-for-fy-2014.
75 See §206 of the Department of Health and Human Services General Provisions in P.L. 113-76.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

In FY2015, the President had proposed to provide a total of $2.80 billion for LIHEAP. Of this
amount, $2.55 billion was proposed to be distributed as regular funds, $200 million as emergency
contingency funds, and $50 million available as a competitive grant to help low-income
households reduce their energy burden. The budget proposed that, of the $2.55 billion available
for regular funds, $366 million be distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula, with the
remainder, $2.184 billion, distributed according to the percentages of the “old” LIHEAP formula.
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education (LHE) approved a funding bill on June 10, 2014. The bill would have
provided $3.39 billion for LIHEAP, the same amount that was distributed to states, tribes, and
territories in FY2014 after 1% of the funds appropriated was transferred within HHS.76 The bill
was not released, so it is unknown whether the funds would have been formula grants alone (with
no emergency contingency funds) and how they would have been distributed.
LIHEAP and Continuing Resolutions
OMB determines the amount of LIHEAP funding that is released to the states pursuant to a CR.77
Despite the fact that the program is technically funded at the previous year’s level, states do not
necessarily receive the same amount of LIHEAP funding that they received in the previous year.
This is due to a standard provision in continuing resolutions that states the following:
[F]or those programs that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete
distribution of appropriations at the beginning of fiscal year 2014 because of distributions of
funding to States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, such high initial rates of operation or
complete distribution shall not be made, and no grants shall be awarded for such programs
funded by this Act that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.78
The provision is meant to ensure that funds for a program that are released under a CR do not
exceed the amount that Congress ultimately appropriates for it or influence Congress in its
appropriations decision. Typically, states are eligible to receive their entire LIHEAP formula
allocations in the first quarter of the fiscal year if they so choose, qualifying as a program “that
would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of appropriations” at
the beginning of the fiscal year as stipulated in the CR.
OMB may gauge the amount of LIHEAP funding to release, in part, based on appropriations bills
in the House or Senate or, in their absence, on the President’s budget proposal. For example, if a
proposed funding level in one chamber is lower than what is proposed in the other, then the
amount subject to release could be based on the lower proposal (in the event that Congress would
ultimately enact the lower funding level).


76 Senate Appropriations Committee, FY15 LHHS Subcommittee Markup Bill Summary, June 10, 2014,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy15-lhhs-subcommittee-markup-bill-summary.
77 For more information about funding pursuant to CRs, see CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing Resolutions
(CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations
, by Clinton T. Brass.
78 See, for example, §109 of P.L. 113-164.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Table 3. FY2014-FY2015 Enacted and FY2016 Proposed LIHEAP Funding
(dollars in millions)

FY2016 Funding
FY2014 Funding
FY2015 Funding
President’s
Type of Funding
(P.L. 113-76)
P.L. 113-235)
Budget
LIHEAP Regular Funds
3,425 3,390 3,190
Appropriated
Training and
3 3 3
Technical Assistance
Leveraging Incentive/
REACH Grants

0
—a
27
Emergency Contingency
0 0 0
Funds
Utility Innovation Fund


200
Total Available
3,390b 3,356c 3,390
Sources: The FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76), the FY2015 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235), and the FY2016 Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families budget justifications.
a. The appropriations act did not specify a level of funding for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants.
b. In FY2014, P.L. 113-76 provided $3.425 billion for LIHEAP. Of this amount HHS transferred 1% elsewhere
within the agency, bringing the total available to $3.390 billion.
c. As of the date of this report, HHS had distributed all but 1% ($34 million) of the $3.39 billion appropriation.
Other Issues
Program Integrity
In June 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report about the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) entitled Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program: Greater Fraud Prevention Controls Are Needed
. The GAO report found
instances of benefit payments to ineligible applicants based on various factors, including the use
of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) from deceased or imprisoned individuals as well as the under-
reporting of income or over-reporting of household members.79 In another instance, the GAO set
up a fake utility company and through fake applicants was able to obtain LIHEAP benefits.
GAO recommended ways in which HHS could prevent instances of fraud such as these in the
future. Among the recommendations in the report were requiring applicants to provide SSNs and
checking applicant information against various databases (e.g., Social Security Administration
data, state vital records, and state directories of new hires).
HHS reacted to the GAO report and its recommendations in several ways:

79 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Greater Fraud
Prevention Controls Are Needed
, GAO-10-621, June 2010, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10621.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

• The agency issued guidance that encouraged states to require LIHEAP applicants
to divulge their SSNs. The LIHEAP statute and regulations do not require grantee
states, tribes, and territories to collect SSNs or to verify applicant eligibility
against specific databases, and not all states follow such verification procedures.
Further, pursuant to the Privacy Act, HHS cannot require states to collect SSNs
as part of the LIHEAP application process. However, the Tax Reform Act of
1976 (P.L. 94-455) authorizes states to use SSNs in administering certain
programs, including “general public assistance” programs,80 which HHS has
interpreted to include LIHEAP.81 As a result, HHS released guidance that the law
“authorizes States to require SSNs as a condition of eligibility for use in verifying
the identity of individual applicants and their household members.” As of
FY2011, 40 states required LIHEAP applicants to provide SSNs, compared to 28
in FY2010.82
• HHS released an Action Transmittal asking states to supplement the information
they provide to HHS for FY2011 to show that they are working to prevent
improper payments, fraud, waste, or abuse.83 The LIHEAP statute directs the
HHS Secretary to establish regulations to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.84 The
regulations in turn require grantees to establish systems and procedures to
prevent these activities among clients, vendors, and administering agencies.85
However, the same section of the statute also states that “[t]he Secretary may not
prescribe the manner in which the States will comply with the provisions of this
subsection.”86 So while each year states must submit a plan to HHS in which they
make “assurances” that they will comply with statutory requirements, there is no
specific way that they must go about this. HHS suggested that states report on
compliance monitoring, fraud reporting mechanisms, verifying applicant
identities, cross-checking SSNs, and verifying applicant income, among others.87
• HHS also assembled a Program Integrity Working Group to recommend ways in
which the agency could address some of the issues raised. The working group
released a report in April 2012.88 Among its recommendations were that (1)
grantees require applicants to provide SSNs, but should provide for exceptions

80 42 U.S.C. §405(c)(2)(C)(i).
81 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, LIHEAP Information Memorandum 10-06, States are Strongly
Encouraged to Exercise their Discretion to Require Social Security Numbers in Determining Eligibility for LIHEAP,
May 5, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/information_memoranda/im10-06.html.
82 Lauren Christopher, “LIHEAP Program Integrity Activities at the State Level,” presentation at the National Energy
and Utility Affordability Conference, New Orleans, LA, June 11, 2012, http://www.energyandutilityconference.org/
Assets/2012%20Conference/2012%20Presentations/2C_Lauren%20Christopher.pdf.
83 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Action
Transmittal 2010-6: Plan Supplement Required for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011: LIHEAP Program Integrity Plan –
Application for LIHEAP Funding, June 8, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/
action_transmittals/at10-06_1.html.
84 42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
85 45 C.F.R. §96.84(c).
86 42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
87 The template is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/action_transmittals/at10-
06_a.html.
88 LIHEAP Clearinghouse, National Center for Appropriate Technology, LIHEAP Program Integrity Working Group
Final Report
, April 13, 2012, http://www.liheap.ncat.org/admin.htm#lhpi.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

due to the emergency nature of LIHEAP, (2) HHS collaborate with other
agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, to help with verification of
identity and income, (3) HHS conduct a cost-benefit analysis of third party
verification, and (4) grantees enter into vendor agreements that include
provisions to prevent vendor fraud.
Performance Measures
At the direction of OMB, beginning in 2008, HHS staff, together with LIHEAP state directors,
have worked to arrive at a set of performance measures that would guide data collection and serve
as a way of examining outcomes resulting from LIHEAP assistance.89 The performance measures
are also intended to respond to some of the issues raised in the GAO report described in the
previous section.
On June 6, 2013, HHS published a proposed information collection (and request for comment) in
the Federal Register, with three primary performance measures proposed.90 Each performance
measure would require collection of several types of data.
The Average Reduction in Energy Burden for Households Receiving Fuel
Assistance: Within this measure, data collected and reported would include the
average annual income of LIHEAP recipient households, average LIHEAP
benefits, the number of LIHEAP recipient households that use each primary
heating source, annual heating fuel consumption by LIHEAP recipient
households, and electricity consumption for cooling.
The Percent of Unduplicated Households Where LIHEAP Prevented a
Potential Home Energy Crisis: Among the data collected for this performance
measure would be the number of households receiving utility past due or
disconnect notices, the number receiving a notice from a bulk fuel vendor of an
unpaid balance, the number of households who deplete deliverable fuel sources,
and the number of households where LIHEAP benefits resulted in repair or
replacement of heating or cooling equipment.
The Percent of Unduplicated Households Where LIHEAP Benefits Restored
Home Energy: This measure would involve identifying households where
LIHEAP resulted in utility reconnection, purchase of bulk fuel, or repair or
replacement of heating or cooling equipment.
While LIHEAP state grantees would be the entities required to collect and report the data to HHS,
information on fuel and electricity consumption would require input from fuel vendors and utility
companies.

89 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Action Transmittal 2010-
4, Implementing LIHEAP Outcome Performance Measures
, March 17, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/
resource/implementing-liheap-outcome-performance-measures.
90 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Proposed Information
Collection; Comment Request,” 78 Federal Register 34105-34106, June 6, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Appendix A. Legislative History of
Energy Assistance

LIHEAP was not the first federal energy assistance program created to help low-income
households with their energy bills. Congressional appropriations for home energy assistance
initially came about in the 1970s at the time of the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries) Oil Embargo of 1973-1974. In the fall of that year, a number of countries in
the Middle East stopped exporting oil to the United States, a stoppage that continued until March
of 1974.91 Prices of heating oil rose, while supplies were restricted. What followed were several
years in which Congress directed funds to assistance focused on lowering energy bills through
weatherization and education. Later in the 1970s, assistance evolved to include crisis assistance
for households facing shutoff or other emergencies, followed by a system of direct payments to
subsidize the energy bills of low-income households. When LIHEAP was enacted, direct
assistance for energy bills was the focus of the program, but all of these forms of
assistance―weatherization, education, and crisis assistance―were made part of the program and
continue to be eligible uses of funds. This appendix discusses the evolution of energy assistance
in the 1970s and early 1980s, culminating in the creation of LIHEAP in 1982.
Energy Assistance Programs Prior to LIHEAP
The first federal funds for energy assistance were the outgrowth of a program that was created in
Maine just after the start of the oil embargo by OPEC countries. In 1973, the Maine Office of
Economic Opportunity applied to the federal Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO, the federal
agency in charge of administering War on Poverty programs in the 1960s and 1970s) to fund a
project they had conceived of called “Project Fuel.” Energy costs, particularly the costs of heating
oil and wood, were growing in Maine, and the state determined that it would assist low-income
and elderly households in meeting their energy needs.92 OEO approved funding for the state at the
end of 1973. Project FUEL used funding primarily to help “winterize” homes, but also to provide
crisis counseling, and purchase fuel for use in emergency situations such as equipment
breakdown or when dealers ran out of fuel.93
Project Fuel prompted what would become the first federal program to assist low-income
households during the energy crisis, the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (EECP, P.L.
93-644) enacted as part of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and Community Partnership Act
at the beginning of 1975.94 The law authorized the Community Services Administration (CSA,

91 Carol A. Kunze, A Chronology of International Economic Events: Oil Prices, the System of International Exchange
Rates, Conference Between Developing and Industrialized Countries, International Economic Summits and Related
Events 1971-976
, Archived Congressional Research Service Report, February 11, 1977.
92 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Federal Food
Programs—1974, Part 6 Fuel Crisis Impact on Low Income and Elderly
, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., January 22 and 23,
1974, p. 706.
93 Ibid., pp. 741-742.
94 The bill originally proposing the new program was S. 3051, the Emergency Energy Conservation Economic
Opportunity Amendments. An identical program was included in the final version of P.L. 93-644. When S. 3051 was
introduced, its sponsor, Senator Javits, described the Maine program, as well as efforts in Vermont, and said “Through
this bill, the sponsors seek to prompt a duplication nationally of such efforts at the earliest moment.” See Senator Jacob
Javits, Introduction of S. 3051, Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 3 (February 25, 1974), p. 4030.
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

which replaced the OEO as part of the same bill) to use funds primarily for weatherization and
conservation purposes, but also gave the authority to use funds for fuel voucher or stamp
programs. Community Action Agencies, Community Development Corporations, state Offices of
Economic Opportunity, and other public or private nonprofit organizations were eligible to apply
to administer the funds.95 Congress first appropriated funds for the EECP in FY1975, $16.5
million, as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 94-32).96 Congress continued to
appropriate funds for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (to be used primarily for
weatherization purposes) through FY1978.97
The EECP came to an end with the advent of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP),
created in 1976 as part of P.L. 94-385 and administered by the Federal Energy Administration
(the predecessor to the Department of Energy). WAP was meant to be a supplement to the EECP,
not to replace it.98 However, the programs were similar. Community Action Agencies
administered WAP funds and weatherized homes of low-income households. By FY1979, the
Administration proposed that weatherization funds be made available only through the DOE
program. In that year and thereafter, Congress stopped funding the CSA weatherization program
and only appropriated funds to the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program.
At the same time that weatherization assistance was phased out of the CSA, the agency began to
administer direct assistance to low-income households to help pay their energy bills. In FY1977,
as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 95-26), Congress appropriated $200 million to
be used through the CSA for a Special Crisis Intervention Program. P.L. 95-26, which was
debated and enacted in the spring of 1977, came just after an unusually cold winter in which both
fuel usage and prices had been high, resulting in large numbers of consumers facing utility
disconnection.99 Unlike previous funding for the EECP, which went primarily to fund
weatherization, the FY1977 supplemental funding was to be used by the states for direct
payments to utilities and fuel suppliers. The program allowed for up to $250 payments to utilities
on behalf of customers whose power had been shut off or threatened with shut off, and up to $50
directly to households that could prove “dire financial need” as the result of having paid large fuel

95 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Community Services Administration, “Character and Scope of
Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency Energy Conservation Program,” 40 Federal Register 31603, July
28, 1975.
96 The conference report, H.Rept. 94-239, provided that $7.5 million more than was available in the House-passed
version of the bill ($9 million) be appropriated. Funds were added to the House-passed version (H.R. 5899) on the
floor; see “Second Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 1975,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 8
(April 15, 1975), pp. 10263-10266.
97 In FY1978, funds were appropriated as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-205). Funding levels were
specified in the FY1978 Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare funding bill (H.R. 7555); see the
conference report (H.Rept. 95-538).
98 See the House and Senate Committee reports to accompany H.R. 8650 (H.Rept. 94-377 and S.Rept. 94-623), one of
the bills from which provisions for the Weatherization Assistance Program were drawn. See U.S. Congress, Energy
Conservation and Production
, conference report to accompany H.R. 12169, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., August 4, 1976,
H.Rept. 94-1392, pp. 88-91.
99 See, for example, statement of Senator Edmund Muskie, Senate debate of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of
1977, Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 8 (April 1, 1977), p. 10114. While many states imposed moratoriums on
utility disconnections during the winter months, when spring arrived, large numbers of households faced shutoff. The
Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations surveyed state utility commissions and utility to companies to
determine the extent of disconnections. The results of the study were published in the Congressional Record, vol. 123,
part 8 (April 1, 1977), pp. 10119-10122.
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

bills.100 Congress again appropriated funds to help households facing energy crises in FY1978
and FY1979 (see Table A-1).
In FY1980, Congress expanded energy assistance by appropriating significantly more funding
than had been made available in the past, a total of $1.6 billion provided through two different
agencies. The impetus behind the rather dramatic increase in funding was, as in the early 1970s,
the increase in energy prices, particularly heating oil. In 1979, the decontrol of domestic oil
prices, together with an increase in OPEC oil prices, led to increases in the price of heating oil
and kerosene. An article in the Congressional Quarterly describing the environment surrounding
the passage of energy assistance legislation noted the “spectacular rise in the price of home
heating oil” as “the biggest factor in the problems that led Congress to take action.”101 In the
summer and fall of 1979, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources alone held 12
hearings on energy assistance legislation.102
Enactment of LIEAP, the Predecessor Program to LIHEAP
Energy needs of low-income households continued to occupy the President and Congress after
the appropriation of energy assistance funding for FY1980. One of the proposals to fund energy
assistance for FY1980, S. 1724, the Home Energy Assistance Act (as reported by the Senate
Committee on Labor and Human Resources), proposed a new energy assistance program to be
authorized from FY1981 through FY1984.103 The program was enacted in April 1980 as the Low
Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act
(P.L. 96-223).104 LIEAP was to be funded by windfall profits taxes imposed as part of P.L. 96-223
and deposited in a Treasury account, but the law did not provide for the account to be established,
so the program was funded by an appropriation.105 LIEAP was authorized at $3 billion for
FY1981; Congress appropriated $1.85 billion for the program in that year (P.L. 96-369).
Like LIHEAP, the program that was to follow, LIEAP was a block grant program to states. Funds
were primarily distributed to the states by formula, with a small amount ($100 million) reserved
for crisis assistance. States could use funds to help low-income households pay home energy
costs. While the term “home energy” included cooling assistance, states could only provide
cooling assistance in cases of medical need. Eligible households were considered those at or
below the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard, an income level that exceeded the
poverty level in most instances.106 Recipients of certain means-tested benefits—Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (now TANF), Food Stamps (now SNAP), SSI benefits, and certain

100 Community Services Administration, “Special Crisis Intervention Program: Information, Application Procedures,
and Post Grant Requirements for the Special Crisis Intervention Program,” 42 Federal Register 33240, June 29, 1977.
101 “Home Heating Assistance.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 535-536. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly,
1980, http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1185945.
102 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, 96th Cong., 1st
sess., October 25, 1979, S.Rept. 96-378, p. 5.
103 “Windfall Profits Tax.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-632. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
104 The program in S. 1724 was incorporated into H.R. 3919, the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act, replacing an
energy assistance program that had been proposed by the Senate Finance Committee.
105 Joe Richardson, Energy Assistance for Low-Income Households: 1979 and 1980 Legislation, Congressional
Research Service Issue Brief, June 15, 1981, p. 18.
106 CRS Memo, Poverty and Lower Living Standard Estimates, April 30, 1980.
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

veterans’ benefits—were eligible for LIEAP benefits. Payments could be made to fuel suppliers
or utilities, residents, or both, at the discretion of the state. States had some discretion in setting
up their programs, with the ability to determine the state and local agencies that would administer
the program, who would receive payments, the amount of benefits, certification for eligibility,
how to provide benefits to renters, and establishment of funds to emergencies (up to 3% of total).
Most at issue in enactment of LIEAP was how funds would be distributed to the states,
specifically whether states would receive the same share of funds, or if colder weather states
would have preference. The formula that Congress established for LIEAP was complex and
incorporated data that included temperatures, energy expenditures, and the number of low-income
households. For more information about the LIEAP formula and how it pertains to LIHEAP, see
CRS Report RL33275, The LIHEAP Formula, by Libby Perl.
Table A-1. Energy Assistance Funding Prior to LIHEAP
(dollars in millions)
Community Services
Department of
Department of Health,
Administrationa
Energy
Education, and Welfare
Special Crisis
Intervention/
Low
Emergency
Emergency
Energy Crisis
Low Income
Income
Energy
Energy
Assistance/
Weatherization
Supplement
Energy
Fiscal
Conservation
Assistance
Intervention
Assistance
al Energy
Assistance
Year
Program
Programb
Program
Programc
Allowances
Program
1975 16.5d — —
— —
1976 27.5e — —
— —
1977 110.0f 200.0g — 27.5 — —
1978 65.0h 200.0i — 65.0 — —
1979 —
200.0j — 199.0 — —
1980 — —
400.0k 199.0
1,200.0l —
1981 — — —m 175.0

1,850.0m
Source: The table notes provide additional information about the funding for each program.
a. CSA funds were appropriated under the authority of Section 222(a)(5) and (12) of the Community Services
Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644). (In 1975, the relevant section was moved from (a)(12) to (a)(5).)
b. In FY1977, Congress cal ed the program the Special Crisis Intervention Program, but in FY1978 and FY1979
referred to it as the Emergency Energy Assistance Program.
c. Appropriations figures for the Weatherization Assistance Program were taken from Evelyn Tager, Federal
Weatherization for Low-Income Households, CRS Report, May 12, 1983.
d. Funds were appropriated in FY1975 as part of the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-32). The
conference report (H.Rept. 94-239) provided that $7.5 million more than was available in the House-passed
version of the bill ($9 million) be appropriated. Funds were added to the House-passed version (H.R. 5899) on
the floor. See “Second Supplemental Appropriations Bil , 1975,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 121,
part 8 (April 15, 1975), pp. 10263-10266.
e. Funds were appropriated in FY1976 as part of the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-206). The conference report (H.Rept. 94-689) specified that the level for EECP be
$11 million more than the $16.5 million that was provided for in the House-passed version of the
appropriations bill (H.R. 8069).
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

f.
Congress appropriated $27.5 mil ion for EECP as part of the FY1977 Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-439). The CSA breakdown in funding is found in
“Conference Report on H.R. 14232, Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, 1977,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 21 (August 10, 1976), p.
26772. Later in the year, another $82.5 million was appropriated as part of the FY1977 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-26).
g. P.L. 95-26 provided $200 million for the Special Crisis Intervention Program.
h. Funds were appropriated in FY1978 for the EECP as part of the FY1978 Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L.
95-205).
i.
Funds were appropriated as part of the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240). While the
funds were to be used in a similar manner to the FY1977 appropriation to the Special Crisis Intervention
Program (to assist households facing emergency circumstances), distribution to the states was contingent on a
showing of an energy-related emergency. In addition, the program was referred to as the Emergency Energy
Assistance Program.
j.
Funds were appropriated as part of the FY1979 Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-482).
k. The Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP) represented an “expanded version” of the Special Crisis
Intervention Program (see Joe Richardson, Low-Income Energy Cost Assistance: FY1980, CRS Report, December
20, 1979). Of the amount appropriated, $250 million was part of the FY1980 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 96-
123), which referred to the amount in the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriations bill (H.R. 4389, H.Rept. 96-400) and the remaining $150 million was appropriated as part of P.L.
96-126, the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act.
l.
Of the $1.2 billion appropriated to HEW for the Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances, $400 million
was set aside specifical y for households receiving Supplemental Security Income. Funds were appropriated as
part of P.L. 96-126.
m. Of the amount appropriated for LIEAP, Congress specified that $87.5 million be allocated to the CSA Crisis
Intervention Program. See the conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 610 (H.Rept. 96-1443).
Enactment of LIHEAP
In 1981, Congress enacted a new program, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP), which replaced LIEAP. LIHEAP was similar to its predecessor program in that it was
set up as a block grant to states, tribes, and territories to help low-income households meet their
energy needs. LIHEAP maintained the same formula distribution as was set up under LIEAP.
Unlike LIEAP, grantees were able to use funds for cooling expenses without a showing of
medical necessity, as well as for weatherization. Grantees were given the option of setting
eligibility at the higher of 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income (rather than the BLS
lower living standard), and the program maintained eligibility for recipients of AFDC (now
TANF), Food Stamps (now SNAP), SSI benefits, and certain veterans’ benefits. The program was
authorized at $1.875 billion from FY1982 through FY1984 and was funded at that level in its first
year of operation. For historic LIHEAP funding levels, see Table B-3.
LIHEAP differed from LIEAP in that states were given more flexibility and had fewer
administrative requirements in implementation.107 For example, under the new LIHEAP program,

107 The Senate Committee report, in describing the new program, stated that “the Committee does not want to burden
States with unnecessary paperwork” and that “the general effect will be to return basic control and responsibility to the
State level.” See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, report to
accompany S. 1377, 97th Cong., 1st sess., June 17, 1981, S.Rept. 97-139, pp. 908-911. S. 1377 was substituted for the
House version (H.R. 3982) prior to enactment of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act. The framework for LIHEAP came
from S. 1377. See Ken Cahill, Low-Income Energy Assistance Reauthorization: Proposals and Issues, Congressional
Research Service Issue Brief, October 28, 1981, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

states were only required to report about households assisted annually, compared to quarterly
under LIEAP, and HHS did not require uniform data collection or record keeping standards.
Under LIEAP, states had to submit detailed changes in plans each time they wanted to modify
benefit levels or the way in which funds were used.108 In applying for LIHEAP funds, the statute
only required grantees to make assurances about the services they would provide, and HHS did
not have the authority to dictate how states would accomplish program goals or to approve or
disapprove state plans.109


108 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Aging, Family, and Human
Services, Examination on the Ability of Existing Energy Assistance Programs to Provide Help for the Needs of Low-
Income Individuals
, Testimony of David Swoap, Under Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 97th
Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 1981, pp. 16-27.
109 Some of the differences between LIEAP and LIHEAP regulations are discussed in U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1982, November
1, 1983, pp. 1-5.
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Appendix B. Tables Showing LIHEAP
Funding Levels

In this appendix are two tables that show how LIHEAP funds have been distributed to the states,
tribes, and territories during recent fiscal years, and an additional table showing historical funding
levels from the time the program was created to the present.
Table B-1 shows the amount of LIHEAP regular funds distributed to states, tribes, and territories
as part of the FY2015 Continuing Resolution (CR, P.L. 113-164), announced by HHS on October
15, 2014, and the remainder, distributed after passage of the FY2015 Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). As of the date of this report, approximately 1% of
the $3.39 billion appropriation had not been distributed. Net allocations to the states distributed
pursuant to the CR are in column (a) (i.e., the column does not include funding for tribes) and
tribal allocations are in column (b). Columns (c) and (d) show state and tribal funding distributed
after passage of P.L. 113-235. Allocations for the territories are in the last rows of the table, after
the states. Column (e) shows total FY2015 funding for all grantees as of the date of this report.
Table B-2 shows the total amount of LIHEAP regular and emergency contingency funds
distributed to each state from FY2007 through FY2014; the totals include funds distributed to
tribes within the states.
Table B-3 provides historic funding levels for LIHEAP from the time the program was initially
funded, in FY1982, through FY2016. The table shows authorization levels for LIHEAP regular
funds, Administration budget requests for both regular and emergency contingency funds, the
total amount of regular and emergency contingency funds appropriated in each fiscal year, and
the total amount of emergency contingency funds distributed.
Table B-1. FY2015 Regular Fund Allotments to States, Tribes, and Territories
Dollars in Millions

Regular Fund Allotment
Available Funds Announced
Available Funds Announced

October 15, 2015
January 21, 2015

Total Funding
Net Funding
Net Funding
Distributed to
Distributed to
Amounts
Distributed to
Amounts
States, Tribes,
States and
Distributed to
States and
Distributed to
and
Territories:
Tribes:
Territories:
Tribes:
Territories:
States and
$3.02 billion
$33 million
$296 million
$3.6 million
$3.356 billion
Territories
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Alabama
39.709 0.238 4.047 0.024 44.018
Alaska
9.389 6.514 0.754 0.801 17.458
Arizona
18.440 0.879 1.879 0.090 21.288
Arkansas 24.131
2.415
26.546
California
156.282 0.617 15.531 0.061
172.492
Colorado 44.078
4.280
48.358
Connecticut
77.288
7.737
85.025
Delaware 11.306
1.141
12.447
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding


Regular Fund Allotment
Available Funds Announced
Available Funds Announced

October 15, 2015
January 21, 2015

Total Funding
Net Funding
Net Funding
Distributed to
Distributed to
Amounts
Distributed to
Amounts
States, Tribes,
States and
Distributed to
States and
Distributed to
and
Territories:
Tribes:
Territories:
Tribes:
Territories:
States and
$3.02 billion
$33 million
$296 million
$3.6 million
$3.356 billion
Territories
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
District of
9.441
0.923
10.364
Columbia

Florida
63.198 0.010 6.440 0.001 69.649
Georgia 49.976
5.093
55.068
Hawai
5.033
0.513
5.546
Idaho
17.296 0.882 1.691 0.086 19.955
Illinois
150.935
14.559
165.495
Indiana
68.333 0.006 6.591 0.001 74.931
Iowa
48.433
4.672
53.105
Kansas
27.650 0.036 2.699 0.039 30.424
Kentucky 40.473
3.965
44.437
Louisiana 34.593
3.482
38.075
Maine
34.037 1.291 3.283 0.125 38.736
Maryland 62.046
6.236
68.282
Massachusetts 131.792 0.106 12.995 0.010
144.902
Michigan
145.147 0.762 14.028 0.079
160.016
Minnesota 103.239
9.959
113.198
Mississippi
24.283 0.050 2.406 0.005 26.743
Missouri 66.506
6.492
72.998
Montana
17.594 3.727 1.720 0.364 23.405
Nebraska
26.686 0.016 2.608 0.002 29.312
Nevada
9.073
0.925
9.998
New
Hampshire
23.213
2.271
25.484
New
Jersey
114.115
11.167
125.281
New
Mexico
15.252 0.833 1.501 0.082 17.668
New
York
343.721 0.187 33.320 0.018
377.245
North
Carolina 76.559 1.386 7.733 0.140 85.818
North
Dakota 17.603 5.559 1.721 0.543 25.425
Ohio
133.525
12.880
146.405
Oklahoma
28.899 3.843 2.812 0.497 36.052
Oregon
31.814 0.584 3.064 0.061 35.523
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding


Regular Fund Allotment
Available Funds Announced
Available Funds Announced

October 15, 2015
January 21, 2015

Total Funding
Net Funding
Net Funding
Distributed to
Distributed to
Amounts
Distributed to
Amounts
States, Tribes,
States and
Distributed to
States and
Distributed to
and
Territories:
Tribes:
Territories:
Tribes:
Territories:
States and
$3.02 billion
$33 million
$296 million
$3.6 million
$3.356 billion
Territories
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Pennsylvania
186.048
18.051
204.099
Rhode
Island
24.616 0.042 2.457 0.004 27.120
South
Carolina
31.726
3.233
34.959
South
Dakota 15.803 3.008 1.545 0.294 20.650
Tennessee 49.711
4.964
54.676
Texas
105.157
10.716
115.873
Utah
21.354 0.302 2.087 0.030 23.773
Vermont 17.253
1.686
18.939
Virginia
73.383
7.357
80.740
Washington
51.369 1.922 4.955 0.185 58.431
West
Virginia
26.238
2.564
28.802
Wisconsin 92.930
8.964
101.894
Wyoming
8.385 0.285 0.820 0.028 9.518
Subtotal to
States and

3,005.059 33.086 294.930 3.570
3,336.646
Tribes
American
Samoa
0.253
0.025
0.277
Guam
0.554
0.054
0.608
Northern
0.192

0.019
0.211
Mariana Islands
Puerto
Rico
13.745
1.350
15.095
Virgin
Islands
0.524
0.051
0.575
Subtotal to
15.267

1.500
16.767
Territories
Total 3,020.326
33.086
296.430
3.570
3,353.413
Source: Funding levels are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for
Children and Families.
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Table B-2. LIHEAP Funding by State: FY2007 to FY2014
(dollars in millions)
State
Total Funds Distributeda
(includes
(regular and emergency contingency)
tribal
allotments)
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
Alabama
22.205 19.221 64.274 69.016 61.570 47.408 48.269 48.885
Alaska

12.454 16.856 30.928 28.182 24.727 18.002 17.171 18.841
Arizona
8.551 9.296 31.084 37.422 33.844 23.852 23.343 23.641
Arkansas
15.749 14.667 39.711 40.000 36.401 28.537 26.746 27.505
California

94.855 103.117 248.487 234.215 211.554 154.574 145.410 153.592
Colorado
33.073 41.326 71.352 70.675 65.035 47.308 44.270 46.378
Connecticut 48.102 65.618 125.887 107.845 102.919 79.532 76.014 77.413
Delaware
5.727 6.929 18.748 16.847 15.854 11.957 12.573 13.016
District of
6.700 7.284 16.249 16.067 14.641 10.687 9.976 10.474
Columbia
Florida
27.977 30.414 101.701 129.014 110.783 78.040 76.376 77.351
Georgia
28.564 24.047 80.410 102.091 87.862 61.702 60.387 61.158
Hawai
2.228 2.403 5.182 6.589 6.235 6.107 5.416 6.159
Idaho
12.901 13.916 30.012 30.158 28.199 20.576 19.207 20.166
Illinois
119.418 149.216 265.679 265.542 248.941 185.684 160.191 167.458
Indiana
54.069 67.561 116.487 117.575 107.584 80.006 72.374 75.820
Iowa
38.319 47.881 76.929 74.524 71.589 54.813 51.292 53.735
Kansas
19.746 22.137 49.541 46.262 43.924 32.160 31.397 31.019
Kentucky
32.010 30.588 75.055 67.832 61.111 46.423 43.483 48.288
Louisiana

22.499 19.651 61.502 59.054 54.895 43.422 40.864 42.062
Maine
33.719 46.536 79.187 60.428 56.541 39.982 37.414 39.195
Maryland
33.036 35.913 109.164 90.005 88.926 69.790 70.390 68.513
Massachusett
s
93.795 126.492 213.500 196.602 183.854 132.731 132.256 140.014
Michigan
113.377 141.667 249.416 276.447 238.425 173.450 165.582 165.444
Minnesota
81.681 102.063 163.982 160.089 152.559 116.839 109.335 114.541
Mississippi
17.871 16.479 42.622 46.650 40.635 31.591 29.313 30.120
Missouri
52.645 59.603 114.902 107.145 100.193 68.231 66.553 70.882
Montana
15.132 18.907 35.202 34.530 33.072 24.135 22.529 23.654
Nebraska
18.950 23.679 44.086 42.893 41.447 30.226 28.214 29.623
Nevada
4.016 4.366 14.599 18.218 15.868 11.203 10.964 11.104
New
Hampshire
18.769 25.635 47.737 37.423 36.050 26.055 24.321 25.536
New
Jersey
80.120 108.707 185.773 199.455 188.792 136.746 124.480 124.570
Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

State
Total Funds Distributeda
(includes
(regular and emergency contingency)
tribal
allotments)
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
New
Mexico
10.705 11.638 27.451 24.739 23.543 17.074 15.938 16.734
New
York
261.604 359.628 538.243 537.348 521.925 375.710 350.169 366.843
North
45.974 42.383 132.528 127.139 116.205 83.011 87.702
Carolina
88.271
North
16.438 20.539 38.240 36.668 35.936 26.218 24.473
Dakota
25.695
Ohio
105.643 132.004 245.750 253.035 234.875 165.463 144.794 154.314
Oklahoma
19.282 17.668 52.878 53.190 49.378 36.094 35.955 37.147
Oregon
25.633 27.650 51.460 52.029 47.861 36.666 34.311 35.945
Pennsylvania 140.520 191.759 308.394 315.357 294.486 209.548 190.810 203.071
Rhode
Island 15.471 20.875 38.653 34.444 31.274 23.241 23.976 23.813
South
17.636 15.266 51.047 56.232 48.649 36.270 38.335
Carolina
38.825
South
13.350 16.681 31.058 29.989 29.259 21.293 19.877
Dakota
20.869
Tennessee
33.568 30.985 80.512 84.899 74.390 55.405 56.856 58.040
Texas
46.545 50.599 169.196 212.807 184.201 129.832 127.064 128.686
Utah
15.369 19.204 35.755 35.003 33.537 24.513 22.882 24.025
Vermont
14.162 19.370 36.156 27.941 26.959 19.529 18.230 19.140
Virginia
40.241 43.746 127.668 109.927 107.215 80.436 78.971 81.877
Washington 42.163 45.481 84.645 83.989 78.688 60.310 56.437 59.124
West
Virginia
18.621 20.157 45.019 43.363 40.786 29.700 27.723 29.108
Wisconsin
73.525 91.872 147.608 145.214 137.390 105.172 98.417 103.103
Wyoming
6.153 7.689 14.315 14.124 13.444 9.815 9.162 9.619
Subtotal to
States and

2,131 2,587 5,066 5,066 4,694 3,437 3,248 3,370
Tribes
Territoriesb 2.788 3.014 6.734 6.816 6.322 4.661 4.405 16.937
Leveraging/
27.225 —d 27.000 27.000
0 26.949
0
0
REACHc
Training/
0.297 0.292 0.300 0.300 0.300 2.994 2.838 2.958
tech. asst.e
Total
2,161 2,591 5,100 5,100 4,701 3,472 3,255 3,390
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) data.
a. The totals shown in these columns include regular fund allocations to states and tribes, and any contingency
funds awarded to states and tribes in that year.
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

b. The statute provides that HHS must set aside not less than 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).
c. 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). 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.
d. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) did not specify funds for leveraging incentive and
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.

Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Table B-3. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2016
(dollars in thousands)
Regular Funds
Emergency Contingency Fundsa
Fiscal
President’s
President’s
Total
Year Authorized
Request Appropriated Request Appropriated
Distributed
D
istributed
1982 1,875,000 1,400,000 1,875,000


— 1,875,000
1983 1,875,000 1,300,000 1,975,000


— 1,975,000
1984 1,875,000 1,300,000 2,075,000


— 2,075,000
1985 2,140,000 1,875,000 2,100,000


— 2,100,000
1986 2,275,000 2,097,765 2,100,000


— 2,100,000
1987 2,050,000 2,097,642 1,825,000


— 1,825,000
1988 2,132,000 1,237,000 1,531,840


— 1,531,840
1989 2,218,000 1,187,000 1,383,200


— 1,383,200
1990 2,307,000 1,100,000 1,443,000


— 1,443,000
1991 2,150,000 1,050,000 1,415,055
NAb 195,180
195,180
1,610,235
1992 2,230,000 925,000 1,500,000 100,000
300,000
0 1,500,000
1993 ssanc 1,065,000
1,346,030
0
595,200
0 1,346,030
1994 ssanc 1,507,408
1,437,402
0
600,000 300,000 1,737,402
1995 2,000,000 1,475,000 1,319,202
d
600,000 100,000
1,419,202
1996 2,000,000 1,319,204
900,000
e
180,000 180,000
1,080,000
1997 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 300,000
420,000 215,000 1,215,000
1998 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 300,000
300,000 160,000 1,160,000
1999 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 300,000
300,000 175,299 1,275,299
2000 ssanc 1,100,000
1,100,000 300,000
900,000 744,350f 1,844350f
2001 ssanc 1,100,000
1,400,000 300,000
600,000g 455,650h 1,855,650
2002 2,000,000 1,400,000 1,700,000 300,000
300,000 100,000i 1,800,000
2003 2,000,000 1,400,000 1,788,300j 300,000
0 200,000k 1,988,300
2004 2,000,000 1,700,000 1,789,380 300,000
99,410 99,410 1,888,790
2005 5,100,000
1,900,500l,m 1,884,799 200,000 297,600 277,250
2,162,050
2006 5,100,000
1,800,000l 2,480,000 200,000
681,000 679,960 3,160,000
2007 5,100,000 1,782,000 1,980,000
0
181,000 181,000 2,161,000
2008 —n 1,500,000
1,980,000 282,000
590,328 610,678o 2,590,678
2009 —n 1,700,000
4,509,672 300,000
590,328 590,328 5,100,000
2010 —n 2,410,000p 4,509,672 790,000 590,328 590,678
5,100,350
2011q
—n 2,510,000r 4,500,653 790,000 200,000 200,000
4,700,653
2012 —n 1,980,000 3,471,672s 590,000
0
0 3,471,672
2013 —n 2,820,000 3,290,083t 200,000
0
0
3,255,436u
Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Regular Funds
Emergency Contingency Fundsa
Fiscal
President’s
President’s
Total
Year Authorized
Request
Appropriated
Request
Appropriated Distributed
D
istributed
2014 —n 2,820,000v 3,424,549 150,000
0
0
3,390,304u
2015 —n 2,550,000v 3,390,304 200,000
0
0
3,356,401w
2016 —n 3,190,000x —
0 —


Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of HHS data.
a. 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. Congress first al ocated emergency contingency funds in January of 1991 due to the price of home heating oil
(P.L. 101-517). Funds were not requested in the President’s budget until FY1992.
c. Such sums as necessary.
d. The President’s FY1995 request would have made the unal ocated contingency funds that were appropriated
in FY1994 (P.L. 103-112) available until expended.
e. The President’s FY1996 request would have made the unal ocated contingency funds that were appropriated
in FY1995 (P.L. 103-333) available until expended.
f.
The Administration released $400 million of the FY2000 contingency funds in late September 2000, making
them effectively available to states in FY2001.
g. The initial contingency fund appropriation for FY2001 was $300 mil ion (P.L. 106-554). The Administration
released the entire amount by December 30, 2000. On July 24, 2001, the 2001 Supplemental Appropriations
Act (P.L. 107-20) provided an additional $300 million in contingency funds.
h. The distributed contingency funds in FY2001 included the $300 mil ion appropriated in P.L. 106-554 and the
amount remaining from FY2000 (approximately $156 million). The $300 million that was appropriated as part
of P.L. 107-20 was made available until expended; a portion was distributed in FY2003 and the remainder was
converted to regular funds that same year.
i.
The FY2002 contingency funds were distributed out of the total FY2002 contingency appropriation (P.L. 107-
116). With the end of FY2002, the remainder of the contingency funds expired ($200 million).
j.
The 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).
k. FY2003 contingency funds were distributed out of contingency dol ars appropriated as part of the FY2001
supplemental (P.L. 107-20).
l.
Of the amounts requested by the President in FY2005 and FY2006, $500,000 was to be set aside for a national
evaluation.
m. In FY2005, the President’s initial budget request for LIHEAP regular funds was $1,800,000,500. However, on
November 14, 2004, the President submitted a budget amendment to Congress, requesting $1,900,000,500
for LIHEAP regular funds.
n. LIHEAP was not authorized from FY2008 through FY2014, and has not been reauthorized for the current
fiscal year (FY2015) or the upcoming fiscal year (FY2016).
o. Of the emergency contingency funds distributed in FY2008, $20 mil ion came from funds appropriated in the
FY2005 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447).
Contingency funds in P.L. 108-447 were made available until expended.
p. In FY2010, the President proposed that a mechanism be created whereby additional LIHEAP funds would be
released when energy price increases reached certain levels; the proposal was not adopted by Congress. The
Administration estimated that this “trigger” would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of $450
million. This estimate is not included in the table.
q. P.L. 112-10 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% on discretionary accounts. As a result, the regular
fund allocation was reduced from approximately $4.51 billion to $4.50 billion.
Congressional Research Service
34
c11173008

.
LIHEAP: Program and Funding

r. In FY2011, the President again proposed a trigger to release additional LIHEAP funds. In addition to proposing
that funds be released when energy prices increase, the FY2011 proposal would have released funds when
participation in SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) increased above a certain level. The Administration
estimated that this trigger would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of $2 billion. This estimate is
not included in the table.
s. P.L. 112-74 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% on discretionary accounts, bringing the total
available for LIHEAP down from $3.478 billion to $3.472 billion. See Division F, Title V, Section 527.
t.
The FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) funded LIHEAP and most
other federal programs at FY2012 levels. However, imposition of reductions through sequestration, including
an across-the-board reduction of 0.2% applied due to failure to stay within the caps set by the Budget Control
Act, reduced funding for LIHEAP from $3.472 billion to $3.290 billion.
u. The appropriations acts give HHS the authority to transfer funds within the agency. In FY2013 and FY2014,
HHS transferred approximately $35 million from LIHEAP, reducing the total available for distribution.
v. The President’s FY2014 and FY2015 budgets also proposed $50 mil ion for a new competitive grant that
would be used to help low-income households reduce their energy burdens. The $50 million is not included in
the request in the table.
w. As of the date of this report, 1% of funds had not been distributed.
x. The President’s FY2016 budget proposed an additional $200 million for a new competitive grant, called the
Utility Innovation Fund, to help reduce energy burdens of low-income households. In addition, as in FY2010
and FY2011, the budget proposed that emergency contingency funds be funded through mandatory
appropriations based on increased energy prices, extreme cold, or participation in SNAP. Neither of these
proposals is included in the table.


Author Contact Information

Libby Perl

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

Acknowledgments
This report benefitted from the research assistance of Jean-Luc Tilly, an intern with the Congressional
Research Service, who delved into the legislative history of energy assistance programs in the 1970s and
1980s.

Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008