.

The LIHEAP Formula
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
June 26, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33275

c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) provides funds to states, the
District of Columbia, U.S. territories and commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations
(collectively referred to as grantees) primarily to help low-income households pay home energy
expenses. The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of funding: regular funds (sometimes
referred to as block grant funds) and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allocated to
grantees based on a formula, while emergency contingency funds may be released to one or more
grantees at the discretion of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services based
on emergency need. This report focuses on the way in which regular funds are distributed.
Regular LIHEAP funds are allocated to the states according to a formula that has a long and
complicated history. (Tribes and territories receive funds through set asides.) In 1980, Congress
created the predecessor program to LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program
(LIEAP), as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223). Because Congress was
particularly concerned with the high costs of heating, funds under LIEAP were distributed
according to a multi-step formula that benefitted cold-weather states. In 1981, Congress enacted
LIHEAP as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), replacing LIEAP.
However, the LIHEAP statute specified that states would continue to receive the same percentage
of regular funds that they did under the LIEAP formula (this is sometimes referred to as the “old”
LIHEAP formula).
When Congress reauthorized LIHEAP in 1984 as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act
(P.L. 98-558), it changed the program’s formula by requiring the use of more recent population
and energy data and requiring that HHS consider both heating and cooling costs of low-income
households (a change from what had largely been a focus on the need for heating assistance). The
effect of these changes meant that, in general, some funding would be shifted from cold-weather
states to warm-weather states. To prevent a dramatic shift of funds, Congress added two “hold-
harmless” provisions to the formula. The percentage of funds that states receive under the
formula enacted in 1984 is sometimes referred to as the “new” formula.
The result of these provisions is a current law, three-tiered formula, the application of which
depends on the amount of regular funds that Congress appropriates. When appropriations are at or
below the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, states receive the
“old” formula percentage of funds. If appropriations exceed this level, then funds are allocated
according to the “new” formula percentage of funds, with certain states held harmless at the level
of funds they would have received at an appropriation of $1.975 billion in FY1984. Finally, when
appropriations are at or above $2.25 billion, there is a second hold-harmless provision in place, a
hold-harmless rate that ensures that certain states receive a set percentage of funds.
For many years after the enactment of the “new” LIHEAP formula, appropriations did not exceed
the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, so funds were distributed according
to the “old” formula percentages. However, in FY2006, and in FY2009 through FY2015, regular
fund appropriations have ranged from $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion, and the “new” formula has been
incorporated into the way in which funds are distributed to the states. In FY2016, the President’s
budget proposal and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bills would
incorporate the “new” LIHEAP formula into the fund distribution. For estimated allocations to
the states, see Table C-1.

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP ................................................................................................... 2
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs .......................................... 2
The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula ............................................. 5
Enactment of LIHEAP ..................................................................................................................... 9
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula ...................................................................................... 9
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula ............................................................... 9
Formula Discussions ........................................................................................................... 9
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level ............................................................................. 10
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate .............................................................................. 11
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language .............................................................................. 11
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments Using the “New” Formula ................................ 12
Calculating the New Formula Rates ........................................................................................ 13
Using the New Formula Percentages to Allocate Funds to the States ..................................... 15
“Old” Formula: Appropriations At or Below $1.975 Billion ............................................ 15
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level: Appropriations Between $1.975
Billion and $2.25 Billion ................................................................................................ 16
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level and Rate: Appropriations At or Above
$2.25 Billion ................................................................................................................... 17
Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP Formula .................................................................... 18

Figures
Figure B-1. Estimated LIHEAP Allocations at Various Hypothetical Appropriations
Levels for Three Types of States ................................................................................................ 28

Tables
Table 1. Factors Used in Select Energy Assistance Formulas, FY1975-FY1980 ............................ 4
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP .................................................................................. 8
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP): “Old” and “New” Allotment
Percentages by State, FY2015 .................................................................................................... 18
Table 4. Recent State Allotment Percentages Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula ...................... 20
Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds at Various
Hypothetical Appropriation Levels ............................................................................................. 24
Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allocations for FY2009 through FY2015
and Estimated Allocations for FY2016 ....................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Appendixes
Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States Under Various Hypothetical
Appropriations Levels ................................................................................................................ 23
Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation
Levels.......................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix C. LIHEAP Regular Fund Allocations to the States, FY2009-FY2015, and
Estimated FY2016 Allocations ................................................................................................... 29

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

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Introduction
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a block grant program
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under which the federal
government gives annual grants to states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and
commonwealths, and Indian tribal organizations to operate multi-component home energy
assistance programs for needy households.1 Established in 1981 by Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35, the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, LIHEAP has been reauthorized and amended a number of
times, most recently in 2005, when P.L. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act, authorized annual regular
LIHEAP funds at $5.1 billion per year from FY2005 through FY2007.2
The federal LIHEAP statute has very broad guidelines, with many decisions regarding the
program’s operation made by the states. Recipients may be helped with their heating and cooling
costs, receive crisis assistance, have weatherizing expenses paid, or receive other aid designed to
reduce their home energy needs. Households with incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty
income guidelines or, if greater, 60% of the state median income, are federally eligible for
LIHEAP benefits. States may adopt lower income limits, but no household with income below
110% of the poverty guidelines may be considered ineligible. The most recent HHS data show
that an estimated 8.1 million households received winter heating or winter crisis assistance in
FY2010 (the largest share of LIHEAP funds pay for heating assistance).3
The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of program funding: regular funds—sometimes
referred to as block grant funds—and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allotted to
states on the basis of the LIHEAP statutory formula, which was enacted as part of the Human
Services Reauthorization Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-558).4 The way in which regular funds are
allocated to states depends on the amount of funds appropriated by Congress. The second type of
LIHEAP funds, emergency contingency funds, may be released and allotted to one or more states
at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of HHS.5 The funds may be released at any
point in the fiscal year to meet additional home energy assistance needs created by a natural
disaster or other emergency.6
The remainder of this report discusses only the history and methods of distributing regular
LIHEAP funds to the state. Funds for tribes are included in each state’s formula allocations and
are distributed at the state level based on eligible tribal members. Territories receive funds
separately as a percentage set aside of regular funds, so neither tribes nor territories are included
in the formula discussion.

1 For additional information on LIHEAP, see CRS Report RL31865, LIHEAP: Program and Funding, by Libby Perl.
2 LIHEAP is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§8621-8630.
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2010 LIHEAP Report
to Congress, p. 35.
4 The formula section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623.
5 Depending on how Congress appropriates them, contingency funds may remain available for distribution in more than
one fiscal year or they may expire with the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
6 The statutory definition of emergency includes a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption, a significant
increase in the cost of home energy, a significant increase in home energy disconnections, a significant increase in
participation in a public benefit program, a significant increase in unemployment, or an event meeting such criteria as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 42 U.S.C. §8622.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Predecessor Programs to LIHEAP
The mid- to late-1970s, a time marked by rapidly rising fuel prices, also marked the beginning of
federal energy assistance funding for low-income households. The first national program to help
low-income households was created in early 1975 to assist families with energy conservation
primarily through home weatherization. This assistance was provided through a new Emergency
Energy Conservation Program (EECP), enacted as part of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity,
and Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644). The funds were administered by the
Community Services Administration (CSA), the successor agency to the Office of Economic
Opportunity, which was responsible for many of the programs created as part of the 1964 war on
poverty. Beginning in 1977, funds were also made available through the CSA to help families
directly pay for fuel (as opposed to weatherization expenses) via a variety of programs. Each of
these programs had in common a focus on the need for heating assistance (versus cooling
assistance).
Congress continued to appropriate funds for energy assistance programs through FY1980, at
which point a new program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP), was enacted
as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). LIEAP, which was
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was funded for one year,
FY1981, before the creation of LIHEAP. Like the CSA programs, LIEAP emphasized heating
over cooling needs. This preference was reflected in both the CSA program formulas and the
LIEAP set of formulas, which used variables that benefitted cold-weather states to determine how
funds would be distributed. The LIEAP set of formulas continues to have relevance for the way in
which LIHEAP funds are distributed. This section of the report describes these predecessor
programs to LIHEAP and their distribution formulas.
Community Services Administration Energy Assistance Programs
On January 4, 1975, President Ford signed into law the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and
Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644), which contained funds for a new program,
called the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (EECP). The program was to be
administered by the Community Services Administration (CSA), and its purpose was
to enable low-income individuals and families, including the elderly and the near poor, to
participate in energy conservation programs designed to lessen the impact of the high cost of
energy ... and to reduce ... energy consumption.
The law governing EECP listed a number of eligible activities in which states could participate,
including energy conservation and education programs; weatherization assistance; loans and
grants for the purchase of energy conservation technologies; alternative fuel supplies; and fuel
voucher and stamp programs. Despite the variety of activities that could be funded through the
program, the first CSA funding notice regarding the program limited eligible activities to
“winterizing” homes and to giving emergency assistance “to prevent hardship or danger to health
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

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

7 Community Services Administration, “Character and Scope of Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency
Energy Conservation Program,” Federal Register, vol. 40, no. 145, July 28, 1975, p. 31603.
8 See, for example, House Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977 Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-68, March 11, 1977: “The funds in this program are used primarily
to purchase materials to insulate the homes of low-income families.”
9 For example, if a southern state experiences 700 heating degree days in a year and a northern state experiences 7,000,
the northern state has 10 times as many heating degree days as the southern state. However, if both numbers are
squared, the northern state has 100 times as many heating degree days as the southern state.
10 Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,”
Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976, p. 47096.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., pp. 47096-47097.
13 Community Services Administration, “Special Crisis Intervention Program: General Information, Application
Procedures, and Post Grant Requirements,” Federal Register, vol. 42, no. 125, June 29, 1977, p. 33240.
14 The formula was described in the Senate Appropriations Committee report to accompany H.R. 4877, the FY1977
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977. The CSA implemented this
formula, which it described in guidance to the states. See the Federal Register, Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

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

Number of persons over age 65 with
Difference in home heating
income less than 125% of poverty
expenditures between 1978 and 1979

Relative cost of fuel

Sources: For the formula under P.L. 93-644, see Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy
Conservation Program: Submission of Funding Plans,” Federal Register, vol. 41, no. 208, October 27, 1976,
p. 47096. For the formula under P.L. 95-26, see Senate Appropriations Committee, report to accompany H.R.
4877, the FY1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 95th Congress, 1st session, S.Rept. 95-64, March 24, 1977.
The formula for P.L. 96-126 is contained within the law.

15 Funds were appropriated through the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240) and in FY1979
through a continuing resolution (P.L. 95-482). In FY1978, Congress called the program Emergency Energy Assistance
Program and in FY1979 called it the Crisis Intervention Program (excluding the word “Special” from the title).
16 Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Funding Requirements for
Emergency Energy Assistance Program,” Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 46, March 8, 1978, p. 9476.
17 Community Services Administration, “Emergency Energy Conservation Program: Fiscal Year 1979 Crisis
Intervention Program,” Federal Register, vol. 43, no. 250, December 28, 1978, pp. 60466-60467.
18 Congress appropriated $250 million for ECAP as part of an FY1980 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 96-123, referencing
the FY1980 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, H.R. 4389), and
appropriated an additional $150 million as part of the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 96-126).
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

a. Of the funds appropriated for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program, 90% were distributed via the
formula, while the remaining 10% were divided among the 12 coldest states as measured by heating degree
days. The formula involved multiplying heating degree days squared by the number of homeowners in
poverty to arrive at the percentage share for each state.
b. The Special Crisis Intervention Program did not specify a weight for each of the four variables used to
determine allocations.
c. The Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances arrived at states’ shares of funds through the formula ½
(heating degree days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ½ (difference in home heating
expenditures between 1978 and 1980). Of the $1.6 billion appropriated for energy assistance in FY1980,
$400 million was set aside for SSI recipients. The formula to distribute those funds was ⅓ (heating degree
days2 * number of households below 125% of poverty) + ⅓ (difference in home heating expenditures
between 1978 and 1979) + ⅓ (SSI recipients in each state relative to the national total).
The Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) Formula
In April 1980, Congress replaced the patchwork energy assistance programs of the late 1970s
with one program, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP). LIEAP, the direct
predecessor program to LIHEAP, was established as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-223). The program was introduced in the Senate as the Home Energy
Assistance Act (S. 1724) and was incorporated into H.R. 3919, the bill that would become the
Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act, on the Senate floor.19 Like the energy assistance programs of
the late 1970s such as the Special Crisis Intervention Program and the Low Income Supplemental
Energy Allowances, LIEAP allocated funds to states in order to help low-income households pay
their home energy costs. Also like these predecessor programs, LIEAP allocated funds to states
using a method that put more emphasis on the heating needs of cold-weather states than it did on
cooling needs.
The formula developed under LIEAP continues to be relevant in several ways: (1) it has been
used to distribute LIHEAP funds as recently as FY2007, (2) the percentage shares of funds that
states received continue to be the benchmark for the way in which states are held harmless under
the current LIHEAP formula, and (3) from FY2009 through FY2012, Congress has distributed the
bulk of LIHEAP funds using the LIEAP formula percentages (for more information, see
Appendix C). As a result, the variables used are important in understanding the current formula
and the way in which it is used to distribute funds.
Ultimately, Congress developed the LIEAP formula through two different laws: P.L. 96-223, the
law that authorized LIEAP, and P.L. 96-369, a continuing resolution enacted six months later. The
following two subsections describe the elements of the formula developed through each.
Formula Under P.L. 96-223
The formula developed as part of S. 1724, and subsequently incorporated into P.L. 96-223,
reflected, in part, the concern that the problem of rising energy costs were “most critical in areas
with high home heating costs.”20 The formula for LIEAP arose from a Senate compromise over
three different proposals. The debate centered around the degree to which heating should be

19 “Windfall Profits Tax.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-32 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980)
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
20 Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, report to accompany S. 1724, 96th
Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 96-378, October 25, 1979, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

emphasized over energy expenditures generally. Some Members wanted a formula that accounted
for all energy uses and was not based solely on geographic location,21 while others saw the
program’s purpose as solely to provide heating assistance.22 The debate on the Senate floor was,
at times, contentious, with Senator Edmund Muskie (ME) resolved to filibuster in order to
support the heating needs of northern states.23 Primarily at issue was the measure of heating
degree days, particularly the extent to which they would be weighted and whether they would be
squared.
Under the final compromise LIEAP formula in P.L. 96-223, states received funds under one of
four different alternatives used to measure home energy need, depending on which one benefitted
a state the most. Three of the four options contained different combinations of several formula
factors: residential energy expenditures; heating degree days or heating degree days squared; and
the number of low-income households in the state.
• Under the first formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and 50% on heating degree days squared
multiplied by the number of households at or below the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) lower living standard.24
• Under the second formula alternative, 25% of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and 75% based on heating degree days squared
multiplied by the number of households at or below the BLS lower living
standard.
• Under the third formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on
residential energy expenditures and 50% based on heating degree days (not
squared) multiplied by the number of households with incomes at or below the
BLS lower living standard.
• The fourth option guaranteed states a minimum benefit of $120 for each
household that received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), SSI,
or Food Stamp benefits. The option was added to S. 1724 at the Finance

21 See, for example, Senator Russell Long, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol.
125, part 25 (November 14, 1979), p. 32278. “But the formula [as passed by the Senate Finance Committee] went a
long way toward considering the total household expense for energy, not just heating.”
22 Senator Rudy Boschwitz, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 14, 1979), p. 32290. “I refer back to the committee report, which talks about the intent of the act being to
‘offset high heating costs (and cooling where medically necessary) and that assistance not be a supplement of all
utilities and their use to run appliances, etc.’... It is very clear that it is the intent of the Senate to help keep people
warm.”
23 Senator Edmund Muskie, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 14, 1979), p. 32288. “I do not often do this. As a matter of fact, this is my 21st year in the Senate, and I can
recall only one other time in which I have sought to use delay and extended debate to make a point and to achieve
justice. I am not a filibusterer. If I did not believe deeply about this, I would not be standing here.”
24 The BLS determined the lower living standard income level through its annual family budgets, which it maintained
from 1947 to 1981. At the time the LIEAP program was enacted, the BLS developed annual family budgets assuming
three different standards of living: lower, intermediate, and higher. The budget was calculated using costs of consumer
goods including food, housing, transportation, clothing, and health care (unlike the federal poverty guidelines, which
are based on the amount of money needed to buy food). The budget was then adjusted for family size and the prices of
goods in various cities throughout the country. See David S. Johnson, John M. Rogers, and Lucilla Tan, “A Century of
Family Budgets in the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, 124, no. 5 (May 2001): 28-45.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Committee level in recognition of the fact that (in general) funds were not being
provided for cooling costs.25
(See Table 2 for a breakdown of these formulas.)
While the focus of the formula was on heating assistance, the LIEAP law did allow states to
provide for cooling when households could demonstrate medical necessity.26 Congress authorized
LIEAP for one year, FY1981, at $3 billion, but funds were not appropriated as part of P.L. 96-
223.
Formula Under P.L. 96-369
Before the formula in P.L. 96-223 could be used to allocate funds, Congress introduced an
alternative method for computing the state distribution rates. It did so when it appropriated $1.85
billion in LIEAP funds for FY1981 in a continuing resolution (P.L. 96-369), in October of 1980,
six months after enactment of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. The new allocation method
was not described in P.L. 96-369, however. Instead, the continuing resolution referred to a House
Appropriations Committee report (H. Rept. 96-1244) accompanying another bill—the FY1981
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act. It was in
this committee report that the additional formula components for LIEAP were laid out.27 The
additional formula components appeared to be intended to act as a counter to the formula
developed in P.L. 96-223, which some argued benefitted warmer weather states more than was
necessary.28
The first step in the new set of formulas was to determine each state’s share of funds using two
calculations set out in H. Rept. 96-1244 and assign states the greater of the two amounts.
• Under the first formula alternative, 50% of the allocation was based on the
increase in home heating expenditures, and 50% was based on the number of
heating degree days squared times the population with income less than or equal
to 125% of poverty. This was the same formula used for the Low-Income
Supplemental Energy Allowances Program.

25 Senator Russell B. Long, “Home Energy Assistance Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, part 25
(November 15, 1979), p. 32561. “This language was evolved in the Finance Committee. When the majority of the
committee voted to exclude such items as air-conditioning and anything related to cooling a house and limited that
formula to heating, this Senator contended that, if that were to be the case, there should be at least a minimum on which
people could depend.”
26 According to the law, “The State is authorized to make grants to eligible households to meet the rising costs of
cooling whenever the household establishes that such cooling is the result of medical need pursuant to standards
established by the Secretary.”
27 House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980, pp.
75-76.
28 See, for example, Representative David Obey, “Low Income Energy Assistance,” House debate, Congressional
Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), p. 23505. “Last year the Congress adopted a formula which, very frankly,
was unfair to the South. It provided a much larger amount of the money available than it should have to Northern
States. In response to that, Senator Long, on the windfall profit tax legislation, adopted an amendment which, for the
block grant portion of the program, provided phenomenal increases for the Southern States at the expense of the
Northern States.”
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

• Under the second formula alternative, 25% of the allocation was based on total
residential energy expenditures, and 75% was based on heating degree days
squared multiplied by the number of low-income households in the state.
The greater of the two percentages calculated using the formula in H. Rept. 96-1244 was then
assigned to each state. After adjusting state allotments proportionately so that the total allocation
reached 100% of funds available, the second step in the amended formula was to compare these
state allotments to 75% of the amount each state would receive under the formula in P.L. 96-223.
States would then receive the greater of these two amounts. To see the percentage of funds that
each state received under the LIEAP formula, see Table 3, column (a).
Although the alternative formulas under H.Rept. 96-1244 used factors similar to those in P.L. 96-
223, the original set of formulas was somewhat more favorable to warm-weather states. For
example, the BLS lower living standard, used in all of the P.L. 96-223 formulas but only one of
those in H.Rept. 96-1244, was higher than 125% of poverty for most household sizes, which
benefitted the South, where the low-income population was higher.29 The original set of formulas
in P.L. 96-223 also provided for a minimum benefit to states on the basis of the number of AFDC,
SSI, and Food Stamp recipient households, unconditioned on their household heating
expenditures. In addition, the inclusion of the increase in home heating expenditures in H. Rept.
96-1244 benefitted Northeastern states, where heating oil prices had increased substantially.30
Table 2. Distribution of Funds Under LIEAP
P.L. 96-223
P.L. 96-369
Assign each state the option under which they receive
the greatest proportion of funds. If Options 2 and 3
Each state receives the greater of 75% of the
both result in a greater proportion than Option 1,
amount under P.L. 96-223 or Option 1 or Option
assign the state the lesser of Option 2 or 3.
2 under P.L. 96-369.
Option 1:
½ Residential energy expenditures
Option 1:
½ Increase in home heating expenditures
from 1978-1980a

½ (Heating degree days)2 * Households with

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

¾ (Heating degree days)2 * Households with

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

½ Heating degree days * Households with

income ≤ BLS lower living standard
Option 4:

Funds sufficient for a minimum benefit of

$120 per AFDC, SSI, and Food Stamp-
recipient household

29 “The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 5.
30 H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify the years between which the increase in home heating expenditures should be
measured. In implementing the formula, HHS measured the increase between 1978 and 1980.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Source: The Crude Oil Windfal Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223) and the House Appropriations Committee
Report to Accompany H.R. 7998, the FY1981 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Bil , H.Rept. 96-1244, August 21, 1980.
Notes: * Multiplied by.
≤ Less than or equal to.
a. H.Rept. 96-1244 did not specify which years would be used to determine residential energy expenditures;
1978 and 1980 were the years used by HHS.
Enactment of LIHEAP
In August 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 97-35, created LIHEAP, replacing
its predecessor, LIEAP. The new program was not substantially different from the previous
program. Some of the changes to the program included less restrictive federal rules and more
state flexibility in determining how to operate their LIHEAP programs. The program was
authorized at $1.85 billion for FY1982-FY1984. In FY1982, Congress appropriated $1.875
billion for LIHEAP; in FY1983, it appropriated $1.975 billion; and in FY1984, $2.075 billion.
Continued Use of the LIEAP Formula
When the formula for LIEAP was initially created in 1980 under the Crude Oil Windfall Profits
Tax Act (P.L. 96-223), it brought about a good deal of debate on the floor of the Senate, where the
formula provisions were added to the legislation.31 Discussion over the formula also occurred
leading up to the enactment of P.L. 96-369, the FY1981 continuing resolution that funded LIEAP
and amended the formula.32 Despite these earlier disagreements over formula allocations, the
process to enact LIHEAP in 1981 did not engender the same level of debate or result in a different
formula. Instead, the law creating LIHEAP provided that the allotment percentages for each state
would remain the same as they had been in FY1981 under the LIEAP formula as amended by P.L.
96-369. From FY1982 through FY1984, then, states continued to receive the same percentage of
funds that they received under the LIEAP formula.
The 1984 LIHEAP Reauthorization: A New Formula
Formula Discussions
When Congress began to consider reauthorizing LIHEAP in 1983, two aspects of the formula
were debated. First, some legislators recognized that the multi-step LIEAP formula benefitted
cold-weather states relative to warm-weather states.33 The second debated aspect of the formula
centered on the appropriateness and timeliness of the data used in formula calculations. In 1983,
the energy information used to calculate state allotments was not the most current data

31 See, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 125, parts 24-25 (November 13-15, 1979), pp. 32082-
32086, 32275-32293, 32558-32565, and 32576-32589.
32 House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 126, part 18 (August 27, 1980), pp. 23502-23515.
33 See, for example, Comments of Rep. Billy Tauzin, U.S. Congress, Joint Hearing before the Subcommittees of the
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, Energy Costs and Low Income
Energy Assistance, 98th Cong., 1st sess., February 24, 1983, pp. 119-120.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

available.34 For example, the most recent data the formula used were the change in the cost of
energy between 1978 and 1980, or the cost of energy in 1980, depending on the sub-formula one
chose to apply. No aspect of the formula took account of increased costs after 1980.35
Legislative sentiment in favor of changing the formula was evident, when, in September 1983,
the House adopted an amendment to the Emergency Immigration Education Act (H.R. 3520) that
would have adjusted the LIHEAP formula and resulted in a change in allocations to the states.
The amendment’s formula took into account the energy expenditures of poor families, which,
according to the amendment’s sponsor, Representative Carlos Moorhead (California), would
result in lower percentage allocations for 23 states, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, gains
for 27, primarily in the South, and the same allocation for one state.36 The amendment was
eventually dropped from H.R. 3520 in conference with the Senate.
Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Level
Efforts to reauthorize LIHEAP began in April 1983 with the introduction of the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Amendments of 1984 (H.R. 2439). The bill was referred to two
committees: Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce. Within the Energy and Commerce
committee, two subcommittees held mark-ups: Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy
Conservation and Power.
As introduced, H.R. 2439 did not contain changes to the LIHEAP formula. The Subcommittees
on Fossil and Synthetic Fuels and Energy Conservation and Power worked together to arrive at a
formula change, which had the effect of shifting funds from states in the Northeast to the South
and West. Unlike the previous set of formulas developed under LIEAP, the new formula directed
the Department of Health and Human Services to determine states’ allotments “using data relating
to the most recent year for which data is available.” Because the cost of heating oil remained
steady between 1981 and 1983, and the price of natural gas rose 33%, this meant that states in the
Northeast—where heating oil was the primary source of energy—would lose LIHEAP dollars,
while states in the South and the Midwest would gain under this provision.37 In addition,
population growth in the South (as well as its higher poverty rates) meant that southern states
would benefit from the use of more recent population data.
To offset the losses to certain states resulting from the use of current data, H.R. 2439 also
included a hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless level; this provision ensured that if
appropriations were less than or equal to $1.875 billion, states would receive no less than their
allotment would have been under the old formula at this appropriations level. The bill
additionally increased the LIHEAP authorization level to $2.075 billion for FY1984, $2.26 billion
for FY1985, $2.5 billion in FY1986, $2.625 billion for FY1987, and $2.8 billion for FY1988.

34 Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
35 Ibid., p. 4.
36 Congressional Record, vol. 129, part 17 (September 13, 1983), p. 23877. The greatest increases in percentage
allocations were for Florida at 51%, Texas at 44%, and Alabama at 37%. The states whose percentage allocations
decreased the most were Vermont at 32%, North Dakota at 24%, and New Hampshire at 23%.
37 “The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: An Analysis of the 1984 Reauthorization Issues,” Coalition of
Northeastern Governors, April 1984, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Introduction of a Hold-Harmless Rate
After the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported H.R. 2439 to the House floor—but
before the full House could act on the bill—the Senate passed its version of LIHEAP
reauthorization as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (S. 2565) on October 4,
1984.38 The Senate bill contained language very similar to H.R. 2439, but made several changes
and additions to the formula.
• S. 2565 specified that states’ shares of LIHEAP funds would be based on the
home energy expenditures of low-income households, not on expenditures of all
households.
• The hold-harmless level was altered. S. 2565 directed that no state in FY1985
would receive less funding than it received in FY1984, and for FY1986 and
thereafter, no state would receive less than the amount they would have received
in FY1984 if the appropriations level had been $1.975 billion.
• A second hold-harmless provision, or hold-harmless rate, was created. The
provision maintained the percentage allocated rather than a total funding level
allocated to each affected state.
The hold-harmless rate provision guaranteed that certain states would receive increased
allotments when appropriations reached $2.25 billion. States would qualify for this increase if
their total allotment percentage at an appropriation of $2.25 billion were less than 1%. These
states would instead receive the allotment rate they would have received at an appropriation of
$2.14 billion if that allotment rate were higher than the rate at $2.25 billion. In their debate about
S. 2565, Senators referred to the hold-harmless rate as the “small States hold harmless,” as the
intent was to protect the small (population) states’ shares of LIHEAP funds.39 Otherwise, the
concern was that appropriations might have to increase significantly before small state allotments
would increase above their hold-harmless levels, with the states’ percentage shares of funds
declining even as total appropriations increased.
The Senate bill also included different authorization amounts for LIHEAP, $2.14 billion for
FY1985 and $2.275 billion for FY1986. After S. 2565 passed the Senate, the House debated and
passed the bill on October 9, 1984, retaining all the provisions included in the Senate version. The
bill became P.L. 98-558, the Human Services Reauthorization Act, on October 30, 1984.
LIHEAP Formula Statutory Language
Unlike the allocation formulas under LIEAP and the other energy assistance programs that
preceded LIHEAP, which dictated the use of specific variables to determine allotments to the
states, the LIHEAP formula as drafted by Congress gives more general guidance to HHS. The
LIHEAP statute, as enacted in P.L. 98-558 and codified at 42 U.S.C. Section 8623(a)(2) provides
as follows.

38 The final version of S. 2565 can be found in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), p.
S13393.
39 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 130 (October 4, 1984), pp. S13415-S13416.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

(A) a State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by
low-income households in that State bears to such expenditures in all States, except that
States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments by reason of the
application of this paragraph from the amount they received pursuant to P.L. 98-139 [the
FY1984 appropriation] shall have their allotments reduced to the extent necessary to ensure
that—
(i) no State for fiscal year 1985 shall receive less than the amount of funds the State
received in fiscal year 1984; and
(ii) no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984 if the appropriations for this
subchapter for fiscal year 1984 had been $1,975,000,000, and
(B) any State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total
appropriation of $2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when
total appropriations equal or exceed $2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced
from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation of $2,140,000,000.
The next section of this report describes how funds are allocated to the states according to this
statutory language.
Determining LIHEAP Regular Fund Allotments
Using the “New” Formula
Current law as enacted in P.L. 98-558, sometimes referred to as the “new” LIHEAP formula,
provides for three different methods to calculate each state’s allotment of regular LIHEAP funds.
The calculation method used to determine state allotments depends upon the size of the
appropriation for that fiscal year.
• If the annual appropriation level is at or below the equivalent of a hypothetical
FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, then the allocation percentages under the
“old” LIHEAP formula apply.
• If appropriations exceed a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion,
then new formula percentages apply and are used to calculate state allotments. To
calculate the new formula percentages, HHS uses the most recent data available
to determine the heating and cooling costs of low-income households. When
appropriations exceed the $1.975 billion level, but are less than $2.25 billion, the
new formula percentages are used together with the hold-harmless level.
• Finally, if appropriations equal or exceed $2.25 billion, the new percentages
apply and both the hold-harmless level together with the hold-harmless rate are in
effect.
This section describes the steps involved in allocating LIHEAP funds to the states under each of
the appropriations triggers.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Calculating the New Formula Rates
As mentioned previously, when Congress considered a new formula for distributing LIHEAP
funds in 1983 and 1984, one of its concerns was the appropriateness and timeliness of the data
used in formula calculations. At the time, the energy information used to calculate state
allotments under the LIEAP formula did not use the most current data available.40 In fact, the
formula allocations were fixed percentages, and the LIHEAP statute at that time had no provision
for allowing newer information to be incorporated into the determination of state allotments. For
example, the formula used the change in cost of energy between 1978 and 1980, but did not take
account of increased costs after 1980. The LIHEAP formula as created by P.L. 98-558 requires
HHS to use the most recent data available. HHS updates these data periodically. The most recent
data were provided to CRS in February 2015.
As directed by the statute as enacted in 1984, the LIHEAP formula uses the home energy
expenditures of low-income households in each state as a first step in determining the proportion
of total regular funds that each state will receive.41 Specifically, this means estimating the amount
of money that all low-income households (as defined by the LIHEAP statute)42 in each state
spend on heating and cooling from all energy sources. This method accounts for variations in
heating and cooling needs of the states, the types of energy used, energy prices, and the low-
income population and their heating and cooling methods. The process for capturing the
expenditures of low-income households for the most current year possible involves the following
steps.
• Total Residential Energy Consumption. The first step in calculating new
formula rates is determining total residential energy consumption for each
heating and cooling source in every state. Residential energy consumption is
usually measured in terms of the total amount of British Thermal Units (Btus)
used in private households and generally captures energy used for space and
water heating, cooling, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and the energy needed to
operate appliances. The most recent data used in calculating LIHEAP formula
rates come from the 2012 Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Energy
Data System consumption estimates.
• Temperature Variation. The next step in determining the formula rates involves
adjusting the amount of energy consumed for each fuel source by temperature
variation in each state. This is done by using a ratio consisting of the 30-year
average heating and cooling degree day data to each state’s share of the most
recent year’s average heating and cooling degree days. A heating degree day
measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature falls below 65°F and a
cooling degree day measures the extent to which a day’s average temperature
rises above 65°F.43 For example, a day with an average temperature of 50°F
results in a measure of 15 heating degree days; a day with an average temperature

40 Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to accompany H.R. 2439, the Low-Income Home Energy
Amendments of 1984, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2, May 15, 1984, p. 13.
41 “[A] State’s allotment percentage is the percentage which expenditures for home energy by low-income households
in that State bears to such expenditures in all States.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2).
42 The LIHEAP statute considers households with income at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income
(whichever value is greater) to be low income. 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B).
43 A state’s heating and cooling degree data are weighted by population in the state.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

of 80°F results in a measure of 15 cooling degree days. The purpose of the
adjustment to fuel consumption is to account for abnormally warm or cool years,
where energy usage might attain extreme values. This information is collected by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The most recent year’s
average heating and cooling degree day data are from 2012, and the 30-year
average was computed from 1971 to 2000.
• Heating and Cooling Consumption. As mentioned above, total residential
energy consumption encompasses other uses in addition to heating and cooling
(e.g., operation of appliances). So the next step in calculating LIHEAP formula
rates is to derive the portion of fuel consumed specifically to heat and cool homes
as opposed to other uses. The EIA, as part of the Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (RECS), uses an “end use estimation methodology” to
estimate the amount of fuel used for heating and cooling (among other uses). The
most recent information on heating and cooling consumption comes from the
2009 RECS.44 HHS adjusts the EIA heating and cooling consumption estimates
using heating degree day and cooling degree day data.
• Low-Income Household Heating and Cooling Consumption. After estimating
heating and cooling consumption for all households, the next step is to calculate
heating and cooling consumption in Btus for low-income households. HHS uses
Census data to determine fuel sources used by low-income households. The most
recent information on low-income households and the fuel sources they use
comes from the American Community Survey three-year estimates for 2010-
2012. In addition, low-income consumption data are adjusted to account for the
fact that low-income households might use more or less of a fuel source than is
used by households on average. This is done using consumption data from the
2009 RECS.
• Total Spending on Heating and Cooling. To arrive at the amount of money that
low-income households spend on heating and cooling, the number of Btus used
by low-income households that were estimated in the previous step are multiplied
by the average fuel price for each fuel source. The total amount spent on heating
and cooling by low-income households for each fuel source is then added
together to arrive at total spending for each state. Regional energy price variation
can be significant, and the formula takes expected expenditure differences into
account. This information is collected by the EIA and published in the State
Energy Data System Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates.45 The most
recent price data used to calculate formula rates are from 2012.
• New Formula Percentage. Finally, these expenditure data are used to estimate
the amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in each state
relative to the amount spent by low-income households on heating and cooling in
all states. The calculated proportion becomes the new formula percentage for
each state. Table 3 at the end of this section shows both the percentages under
the “old” formula (column (a)) and the most recent “new” formula percentages
(column (b)), received by CRS from HHS in February 2015. To see how the
formula rates for each state have changed in recent years, see Table 4.

44 For more information about the RECS, see the EIA website at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
45 The EIA’s state data tables are available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

These new formula percentages are used to allocate LIHEAP funds to the states if the annual
appropriation exceeds the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
However, they do not represent the exact percentage of funds that states will receive under the
new formula. The ultimate allotments are determined after application of both the hold-harmless
level and hold-harmless rate, described in the next section. The new percentages are the starting
point for determining how funds will be allocated to the states.
Using the New Formula Percentages to Allocate Funds to the States
The LIHEAP new formula percentages that HHS calculates using the most current data available
do not necessarily represent the percentage of funds that states will receive. State allotments
depend upon the application of the two hold-harmless provisions in the LIHEAP statute. Some
states must have their share of funds ratably reduced in order to hold harmless those states that
would, but for the hold-harmless provisions, lose funds. Other states see a gain in their share of
funds because they benefit from the hold-harmless provisions. The application of the hold-
harmless provisions depends upon the size of the appropriation for a given fiscal year. These
appropriation level triggers are described below.
“Old” Formula: Appropriations At or Below $1.975 Billion
The LIHEAP statute does not contain an explicit trigger for the “new” formula rates to be used.
However, the statute specifies that states must receive no less than “the amount of funds the State
would have received in fiscal year 1984 if the appropriations for this subchapter for fiscal year
1984 had been $1,975,000,000.” As a result, up to this appropriation level, states receive the same
percentage of funds that they would have received at a given appropriation level under the “old”
LIHEAP formula.46
The FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion referred to in the LIHEAP statute is hypothetical
because this was not the amount actually appropriated in FY1984. The actual FY1984
appropriation was $2.075 billion. In addition, the current year appropriation that is “equivalent
to” a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is not exactly $1.975 billion. In
FY1984, with the exception of funds provided to the territories, all LIHEAP regular funds were
distributed to the states. Since then, two other funds have become part of the regular fund
distribution. These are funds for training and technical assistance and for the leveraging incentive
grants (which includes REACH grants) to the states. This means that an appropriation that is
equivalent to a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion must account for these new
funds. Assuming that funds for leveraging incentive/REACH grants would be $27 million and
training and technical assistance would be $3 million (amounts that have typically been set aside
in the appropriation), then the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion is
approximately $2.005 billion.47

46 When appropriations are below a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion, the result of the current law’s
hold-harmless provisions is that states receive the same allotment percentages that they did under the old formula. See
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress
for FY1987, p. 133.
47 This amount is arrived at by adding $27 million and $3 million to $1.975 billion.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

The LIHEAP formula in FY1984 distributed funds by giving states the same percentage of funds
that they received in FY1981 under the predecessor program, the Low Income Energy Assistance
Program (LIEAP). Table 3 (later, following the “Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP
Formula” section), shows rates under the old formula in column (a). For example, at an
appropriation at or below the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975
billion, Alabama would receive 0.86% of total funds, Alaska would receive 0.55% of total funds,
and so on. Table A-1, column (a) reports the dollar amount of funds that each state would have
received in FY1984 had the regular fund appropriation been $1.975 billion. For comparison
purposes, the dollar amounts also assume that funds for the territories would be 0.5% of the total,
a change made by HHS beginning with the FY2014 appropriation.48
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level: Appropriations Between $1.975
Billion and $2.25 Billion
If the regular LIHEAP appropriation exceeds the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984
appropriation of $1.975 billion for the fiscal year, all funds are to be distributed under a different
methodology, using the new set of percentages described earlier. In addition, a hold-harmless
level applies to ensure that certain states do not fall below the amount of funds they would have
received at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
Table 3 shows whether a state benefits from the hold-harmless level. This is indicated by a “Y” in
column (c), while the dollar amount of funds those states receive by being held harmless appears
in column (d). For example, Alabama is not held harmless, while Colorado is held harmless. The
dollar amount of funds that Colorado receives pursuant to the hold-harmless level is $31.613
million. But for the hold-harmless level, Colorado would receive less than this dollar amount at
its new formula percentage at certain appropriation levels. Eventually, when appropriations
increase sufficiently, the percentage of funds under the “new” formula for hold-harmless states
will exceed their hold harmless amounts and they will begin to receive their “new” percentage of
funds. This appropriation level varies for each state. For example, at lower appropriation levels,
the $31.613 million hold-harmless level for Colorado exceeds the state’s “new” percentage share
of 1.391% of total funds. However, at an appropriation of about $2.3 billion, Colorado’s new
percentage share exceeds $31.613 million and the state begins to receive funds at the “new”
percentage. Eventually, many states will receive the percentage of funds at their “new”
percentage.49
The hold-harmless level is achieved by reducing the allocation of funds to states with the greatest
proportional gains under the new formula percentages.50 For example, under the most recent
LIHEAP formula percentages, states with the greatest proportional gains were Nevada, Arizona,
and Florida. Depending on the appropriation level, these states (and others with the greatest
gains) may then have their allotments reduced to hold harmless the states that would otherwise

48 HHS Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services, LIHEAP Dear Colleague Notice
Allocation for Territories FY2014, November 22, 2013, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheap-
allocation-for-territories-fy-2014.
49 The exceptions to this are states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate, described in the next section, and the states
that are ratably reduced in order to compensate states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate.
50 “States which thereby receive the greatest proportional increase in allotments ... shall have their allotments reduced
to the extent necessary to ensure that ... no State for fiscal year 1986 and thereafter shall receive less than the amount of
funds the State would have received in fiscal year 1984.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(A)(ii).
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

see reduced benefits. So although these states with the greatest proportional gains will see their
LIHEAP allotments increase under the new formula, their allotments may not increase to reach
their new formula rates (column (b) of Table 3).
Columns (b) and (c) of Table A-1 show estimated allotments to the states at hypothetical
appropriations levels between $1.975 billion and $2.25 billion. Column (b) shows the estimated
allotment of funds that each state would receive when the regular fund appropriation is at $2.14
billion and column (c) shows the estimated allotment of funds when the regular fund
appropriation is just under $2.25 billion ($2,249,999,999).
“New” Formula with Hold-Harmless Level and Rate: Appropriations At or
Above $2.25 Billion
The LIHEAP statute stipulates additional requirements in the method for distributing funds when
the appropriation is at or above $2.25 billion. At this level, the hold-harmless level still applies,
but, in addition, a new hold-harmless rate is applied. Specifically, for all appropriation levels at or
above $2.25 billion, states that would have received less than 1% of a total $2.25 billion
appropriation must be allocated the percentage they would have received at a $2.14 billion
appropriation level.51 (This assumes the percentage at $2.14 billion is greater than the percentage
originally calculated at the hypothetical $2.25 billion appropriation; this is not true for all states
that receive less than 1% of the $2.25 billion appropriation.) Then that state will receive the
percentage share of funds it would have received at $2.14 billion for all appropriation levels at or
above $2.25 billion. This hold-harmless rate ensures a state specific share of the total available
funds.
As with the hold-harmless level, the allocations to the states with the greatest proportional gains
are then ratably reduced again until there is no funding shortfall. Column (e) of Table 3 shows
which states benefit from the hold-harmless rate, indicated by a “Y,” while column (f) shows the
proportion of funds that those states receive. For example, Idaho benefits from the hold-harmless
rate and receives 0.587% of the total appropriation when appropriations are at or above $2.25
billion.
The application of the hold-harmless rate creates another layer of discontinuity in the allocation
rates. States that are ratably reduced see their allocations at $2.25 billion fall below the amount
they would receive at $2.249 billion, while states that benefit from the hold-harmless rate see
their funding jump up slightly. Columns (d) through (i) of Table A-1 in Appendix A show
estimated allotments to states at various hypothetical appropriations levels at or above $2.25
billion. Column (d) shows the estimated allotment of funds that each state receives when the
regular appropriation is at $2.25 billion after the hold-harmless rate is applied. Columns (e)
through (i) show the estimated allotment each state would receive at $2.5 billion, $3.0 billion,
$3.39 billion (the amount appropriated in FY2014 and FY2015), $4.0 billion, and $5.1 billion
(the amount at which LIHEAP was last authorized).

51 “[A]ny State whose allotment percentage out of funds available to States from a total appropriation of
$2,250,000,000 would be less than 1 percent, shall not, in any year when total appropriations equal or exceed
$2,250,000,000, have its allotment percentage reduced from the percentage it would receive from a total appropriation
of $2,140,000,000.” 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)(2)(B).
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Implementation of the “New” LIHEAP Formula
Until FY2006, appropriations for regular LIHEAP funds had only exceeded the equivalent of a
hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion in 1985 and 1986; thereafter, from FY1987
through FY2005, and again in FY2007, states continued to receive the same percentage of
LIHEAP funds that they received under the program’s predecessor, LIEAP (see column (a) of
Table 3 for these percentages). In FY2006, funds were distributed under the “new” LIHEAP
formula when Congress appropriated $2.48 billion in regular funds for the program. In FY2008,
perhaps due to an oversight, the new formula was again used to distribute funds. The FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) failed to authorize a set-aside called leveraging
incentive grants. As a result, the funds for those grants were added to the LIHEAP regular funds,
triggering the new formula.52 In FY2009, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-329) appropriated $4.51 billion in regular funds.
However, the law further specified that $840 million be distributed according to the “new”
LIHEAP formula, with the remaining $3.67 billion distributed according to the percentages of the
“old” formula established by LIEAP. From FY2010 to FY2015, Congress has continued to
appropriate funds using a version of a split between the “old” and “new” formulas. See Table C-1
in Appendix C of this report for the distribution of funds to the states from FY2009 through
FY2015.
Table 3. Low-Income Home Energy Program (LIHEAP):
“Old” and “New” Allotment Percentages by State, FY2015

Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
“Old”
“New”
Hold-
Allotment
Allotment
Harmless
Hold-
Percentage
Percentage
State Held
Level
State Held
Harmless
(%)
(%)
Harmless?
($Millions)
Harmless?
Rate (%)
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Alabama
0.860
1.488 N
— N
—
Alaska
0.549
0.491 Y 10.788 Y 0.514
Arizona
0.416
1.424 N
— N
—
Arkansas
0.656
0.846 N
— N
—
California 4.614
5.371 N
— N
—
Colorado 1.609 1.391
Y 31.613
N —
Connecticut 2.099
2.711 N
— N
—
Delaware
0.279
0.407 N
— N
—
District of
0.326
0.173 Y 6.405 Y 0.305
Columbia
Florida
1.361
4.057 N
— N
—
Georgia
1.076
3.068 N
— N
—
Hawai
0.108
0.219 N
— N
—
Idaho
0.628
0.364 Y 12.331 Y 0.587

52 For more information about this issue, see Appendix C of this report.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Hold-Harmless Levela
Hold-Harmless Rate
“Old”
“New”
Hold-
Allotment
Allotment
Harmless
Hold-
Percentage
Percentage
State Held
Level
State Held
Harmless
(%)
(%)
Harmless?
($Millions)
Harmless?
Rate (%)
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Utah
0.748
0.568 Y 14.691 Y 0.700
Vermont
0.596
0.490 Y 11.704 Y 0.557
Virginia
1.957
2.588 N
— N
—
Washington 2.051
1.443 Y 40.302 N
—
West
Virginia 0.906
0.661 Y 17.799 Y 0.848
Wisconsin
3.576 2.000
Y
70.280
N —
Wyoming 0.299
0.173 Y 5.882 Y 0.280
Source: New al otment percentages were provided to CRS by HHS in February 2015. Information in columns
(c) through (f) are based on CRS calculations using the new al otment percentages. The calculations assume that
funding would be provided for leveraging incentive/REACH grants, training and technical assistance, and 0.5% for
the territories.
Notes: The actual percentage of total regular funds each state receives at funding levels above $1.975 billion
may differ from the new formula percentages due to the hold-harmless provisions and the ratable reductions of
some states to cover shortfall from these hold-harmless provisions.
a. The states that benefit from the hold-harmless level vary depending on the amount appropriated for
LIHEAP regular funds. The states listed here benefit from the hold-harmless level when appropriations just
exceed the equivalent of an FY1984 appropriation of $1.975 billion.
Table 4. Recent State Allotment Percentages Under the “New” LIHEAP Formula
(Fiscal years indicate when new formula rates would have been used to distribute funds to states)
“Old”
“New” Formula Percentages
Formula
States
Percentages
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Alabama
0.860% 1.932% 1.650% 1.582% 1.599% 1.583% 1.716% 1.686% 1.488%
Alaska
0.549 0.376 0.317 0.575 0.511 0.398 0.522 0.563 0.491
Arizona
0.416 0.992 0.813 1.018 1.098 1.132 1.326 1.379 1.424
Arkansas
0.656 1.082 0.910 0.884 0.852 0.899 0.876 0.876 0.846
California
4.614 5.690 5.303 4.479 4.453 4.452 4.433 4.536 5.371
Colorado
1.609 1.280 1.305 1.333 1.247 1.267 1.264 1.270 1.391
Connecticut 2.099 1.732 2.164 2.205 2.239 2.398 2.416 2.371 2.711
Delaware
0.279 0.435 0.453 0.375 0.373 0.375 0.421 0.427 0.407
District of
0.326 0.309 0.328 0.181 0.192 0.194 0.184 0.149 0.173
Columbia
Florida
1.361 4.187 3.781 4.728 4.583 4.593 5.475 5.201 4.057
Georgia
1.076 2.829 2.734 2.620 2.641 2.742 3.137 3.166 3.068
Hawai
0.108 0.101 0.099 0.150 0.150 0.205 0.185 0.230 0.219
Idaho
0.628 0.386 0.331 0.396 0.349 0.335 0.339 0.371 0.364
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

“Old”
“New” Formula Percentages
Formula
States
Percentages
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Illinois
5.809 4.796 4.998 4.843 5.014 5.243 4.655 4.510 4.075
Indiana
2.630 2.209 2.128 2.147 2.080 2.209 1.814 1.934 1.712
Iowa
1.864 1.085 1.064 1.028 1.099 1.080 1.001 1.065 1.005
Kansas
0.856 1.105 1.106 0.978 0.993 0.967 1.002 0.945 0.932
Kentucky
1.369 1.688 1.621 1.243 1.256 1.344 1.329 1.457 1.318
Louisiana
0.879 1.704 1.514 1.324 1.365 1.414 1.378 1.387 1.236
Maine
1.360 0.722 0.908 1.127 1.090 1.010 0.927 1.041 1.052
Maryland
1.607 2.421 2.652 1.965 2.080 2.197 2.344 2.193 2.206
Massachusetts 4.198 3.043 3.311 3.757 3.718 3.730 4.032 4.138 4.395
Michigan
5.515 4.651 4.645 5.040 4.819 4.863 4.966 4.681 4.535
Minnesota
3.973 1.789 1.917 2.023 2.025 2.047 1.849 1.921 1.827
Mississippi
0.737 1.105 0.951 0.974 0.940 0.990 0.955 0.953 0.825
Missouri
2.320 2.497 2.309 2.014 2.011 1.829 1.963 2.021 2.140
Montana
0.736 0.414 0.441 0.295 0.287 0.328 0.280 0.314 0.347
Nebraska
0.922 0.598 0.558 0.547 0.553 0.591 0.555 0.561 0.483
Nevada
0.195 0.686 0.576 0.500 0.526 0.498 0.563 0.537 0.722
New
Hampshire
0.795 0.453 0.503 0.612 0.605 0.742 0.623 0.731 0.753
New
Jersey 3.897 2.838 3.621 3.995 4.105 4.010 3.812 3.620 3.703
New
Mexico 0.521 0.628 0.577 0.458 0.441 0.430 0.407 0.394 0.533
New
York 12.725 8.491 9.393 9.520 10.018 10.227 9.445 9.318 10.792
North
1.896 3.186 3.261 2.766 2.823 2.619 2.954 2.891 2.817
Carolina
North
Dakota 0.800 0.235 0.273 0.246 0.256 0.302 0.215 0.254 0.251
Ohio
5.139 4.512 4.803 4.893 4.941 4.687 4.243 4.368 3.836
Oklahoma
0.791 1.452 1.275 1.236 1.224 1.152 1.207 1.219 1.186
Oregon
1.247 1.008 0.750 0.715 0.702 0.664 0.712 0.781 0.885
Pennsylvania 6.835 5.174 5.731 5.993 5.885 5.807 5.571 5.720 5.856
Rhode
Island 0.691 0.596 0.665 0.635 0.615 0.670 0.753 0.712 0.857
South
0.683 1.425 1.349 1.278 1.260 1.201 1.394 1.403 1.288
Carolina
South
Dakota 0.649 0.268 0.235 0.249 0.253 0.272 0.233 0.240 0.242
Tennessee
1.386 2.055 1.801 1.743 1.717 1.700 1.865 1.848 1.730
Texas
2.264 7.095 6.524 7.668 7.349 7.135 7.183 6.942 6.529
Utah
0.748 0.648 0.599 0.559 0.508 0.413 0.452 0.494 0.568
Vermont
0.596 0.356 0.319 0.418 0.419 0.396 0.417 0.425 0.490
Virginia
1.957 2.817 3.041 2.428 2.486 2.490 2.581 2.607 2.588
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

“Old”
“New” Formula Percentages
Formula
States
Percentages
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Washington 2.051 1.621 1.204 1.225 1.245 1.145 1.244 1.305 1.443
West
Virginia 0.906 0.960 0.907 0.663 0.639 0.638 0.625 0.631 0.661
Wisconsin
3.576 2.108 2.080 2.229 2.236 2.230 2.010 2.054 2.000
Wyoming
0.299 0.233 0.202 0.137 0.129 0.154 0.146 0.160 0.173
Source: State data were received by CRS from HHS in May 2007, September 2008, April 2009, June 2010,
August 2011, August 2012, September 2013, and February 2015.

Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Appendix A. Estimated Allotments to the States
Under Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels
Table A-1, below, shows estimated allocations to the states at various hypothetical appropriations
levels. In column (a) are allotments at the equivalent of a hypothetical FY1984 appropriation of
$1.975 billion—under current LIHEAP practice where funds are set aside for leveraging incentive
grants and training and technical assistance, the equivalent appropriation level is approximately
$2.005 billion. The remaining columns show estimated allotments at appropriations of $2.14
billion, just under $2.25 billion, $2.25 billion, $3.0 billion, $3.39 billion, $4.0 billion, and $5.1
billion, the amount at which the LIHEAP program was last authorized in P.L. 109-58. In each
case, the estimates assume that 0.5% would be set aside for the territories, the amount set aside by
HHS starting in FY2014.

Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008

.

Table A-1. LIHEAP Estimated State Allotments for Regular Funds at Various Hypothetical Appropriation Levels
($ in millions)
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless

“Old” Formula
Level Only
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
Just Under
in FY1984
$2.14 Billion
$2.25 Billion
$2.25 Billion
$2.5 Billion
$3.0 Billion
$3.39 Billion
$4.0 Billion
$5.1 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Alabama
16.901 21.101
25.391 24.917 36.562 43.963 49.740 58.765 75.048
Alaska
10.788 10.788
10.841 11.351 12.629 15.185 17.181 20.298 25.923
Arizona
8.174 10.205
12.279 12.050 17.716 27.484 33.095 40.805 52.703
Arkansas
12.896 16.101
18.690 18.690 20.795 25.004 28.290 33.424 42.684
California
90.669 112.764
118.643 118.643 132.004 158.725 179.584 212.168 270.955
Colorado
31.613 31.613
31.613 31.613 34.198 41.120 46.524 54.965 70.195
Connecticut
41.241 51.490
59.889 59.889 66.634 80.122 90.651 107.099 136.774
Delaware
5.474 6.834
8.224 8.070 10.010 12.036 13.618 16.089 20.547
District of
Columbia
6.405 6.405
6.405 6.739 7.498 9.015 10.200 12.051 15.390
Florida
26.742 33.389
40.176 39.426 57.963 89.923 108.281 133.508 172.436
Georgia
21.144 26.399
31.765 31.173 45.828 71.098 85.613 105.558 136.337
Hawaii
2.129 2.659
3.199 3.139 4.615 6.484 7.336 8.667 11.068
Idaho
12.331 12.331
12.331 12.974 14.435 17.357 19.638 23.202 29.630
Illinois
114.147 114.147
114.147 114.147 114.147 120.431 136.258 160.980 205.584
Indiana
51.683 51.683
51.683 51.683 51.683 51.683 57.253 67.641 86.382
Iowa
36.628 36.628
36.628 36.628 36.628 36.628 36.628 39.682 50.677
Kansas
16.821 19.568
20.588 20.588 22.907 27.544 31.164 36.818 47.019
Kentucky
26.895 27.680
29.123 29.123 32.402 38.962 44.082 52.080 66.510
CRS-24
c11173008

.

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless

“Old” Formula
Level Only
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
Just Under
in FY1984
$2.14 Billion
$2.25 Billion
$2.25 Billion
$2.5 Billion
$3.0 Billion
$3.39 Billion
$4.0 Billion
$5.1 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Louisiana
17.279 21.573
25.958 25.474 30.379 36.528 41.328 48.827 62.356
Maine
26.717 26.717
26.717 26.717 26.717 31.088 35.173 41.555 53.069
Maryland
31.578 39.425
47.439 46.555 54.211 65.185 73.751 87.133 111.276
Massachusetts
82.495 92.276
97.087 97.087 108.020 129.886 146.956 173.619 221.725
Michigan
108.373 108.373
108.373 108.373 111.453 134.014 151.625 179.136 228.771
Minnesota
78.076 78.076
78.076 78.076 78.076 78.076 78.076 78.076 92.151
Mississippi
14.490 17.315
18.218 18.218 20.270 24.373 27.576 32.579 41.606
Missouri
45.595 45.595
47.265 47.265 52.587 63.233 71.542 84.523 107.943
Montana
14.464 14.464
14.464 15.218 16.932 20.359 23.035 27.214 34.754
Nebraska
18.114 18.114
18.114 19.058 21.205 25.497 28.848 34.082 43.525
Nevada
3.839 4.793
5.767 5.660 8.320 12.908 15.544 19.165 24.753
New
Hampshire
15.615 15.800
16.624 16.624 18.496 22.240 25.162 29.728 37.965
New
Jersey
76.584 77.743
81.796 81.796 91.008 109.430 123.811 146.276 186.805
New
Mexico
10.233 11.184
11.767 11.767 13.092 15.742 17.811 21.043 26.873
New
York
250.058 250.058
250.058 250.058 265.220 318.909 360.818 426.285 544.400
North
Carolina
37.266 46.528
55.986 54.942 69.232 83.246 94.186 111.276 142.108
North
Dakota
15.712 15.712
15.712 16.531 18.393 22.116 25.023 29.563 37.754
Ohio
100.980 100.980
100.980 100.980 100.980 113.363 128.261 151.532 193.519
Oklahoma
15.535 19.396
23.339 22.904 29.139 35.037 39.641 46.834 59.811
CRS-25
c11173008

.

“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless

“Old” Formula
Level Only
“New” Formula, Hold-Harmless Level and Rate
Hypothetical
$1.975 Billion
Just Under
in FY1984
$2.14 Billion
$2.25 Billion
$2.25 Billion
$2.5 Billion
$3.0 Billion
$3.39 Billion
$4.0 Billion
$5.1 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Oregon
24.502 24.502
24.502 24.502 24.502 26.162 29.600 34.970 44.660
Pennsylvania
134.318 134.318
134.318 134.318 143.931 173.067 195.810 231.338 295.437
Rhode
Island
13.579 16.954
18.929 18.929 21.061 25.324 28.652 33.851 43.230
South
13.423 16.759
20.165 19.789 29.093 38.049 43.050 50.861 64.953
Carolina
South
Dakota
12.761 12.761
12.761 13.426 14.938 17.962 20.323 24.010 30.663
Tennessee
27.245 34.016
38.217 38.217 42.521 51.128 57.847 68.343 87.279
Texas
44.490 55.548
66.839 65.593 96.430 149.602 180.144 222.112 286.876
Utah
14.691 14.691
14.691 15.457 17.197 20.679 23.396 27.641 35.300
Vermont
11.704 11.704
11.704 12.314 13.701 16.474 18.639 22.021 28.122
Virginia
38.465 48.025
57.155 56.709 63.592 76.465 86.513 102.210 130.531
Washington
40.302 40.302
40.302 40.302 40.302 42.629 48.231 56.982 72.771
West
Virginia
17.799 17.799
17.799 18.727 20.836 25.053 28.346 33.489 42.768
Wisconsin
70.280 70.280
70.280 70.280 70.280 70.280 70.280 79.009 100.900
Wyoming
5.882 5.882
5.882 6.189 6.885 8.279 9.367 11.067 14.133
Total
1,965.125 2,099.450
2,208.900 2,208.900 2,457.650 2,955.150 3,343.502 3,950.150 5,044.650
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculations based on factors provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in February 2015.
Notes: These estimates take into account current law, which allows HHS to set aside funds out of regular LIHEAP funds for territories, leverage incentive grants and
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants and training and technical assistance. For each estimate, 0.5% is allocated to the territories, $27 million to
leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and $3 million to training and technical assistance. Differing allocations for these purposes could change state allotments.
CRS-26
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Appendix B. Further Depiction of How State
Allotments Depend Upon Appropriation Levels
Figure B-1 graphically illustrates state allotments for three “typical” types of states over a range
of appropriations from $0 to $5.1 billion. Represented are (1) a hold-harmless level state, (2) a
hold-harmless level and rate state, and (3) a state whose increased allocations are ratably reduced
in order to maintain allocations for the hold-harmless level and rate states.
In the figure, there are three vertical areas. These areas separate the three levels of appropriations
that are triggers under current law and were explained previously in this report. The figure also
graphs the three basic types of states. Reading from top to bottom of Figure B-1, these three
types of states are as follows.
• Hold-Harmless Level Only States. These states are subject to only the hold-
harmless level provision. They do not qualify for the hold-harmless rate because
each state’s share of the regular funds at $2.25 billion is greater than 1%. An
example of a hold-harmless level only state is represented by the line that runs
from $0 to point G. The hold-harmless level is evident from point A to point F.
Here, despite increases in the appropriations level, the state allotment remains
fixed. In Table 3, these are the states that have a “Y” in column (c) and an “N”
in column (e).
• Ratable Reduction States. These states are subject to a ratable reduction. Their
new formula percentage is greater than their old (FY1984) percentage. An
example of these states is depicted by the line that runs from $0 to point H. There
is a small decrease in state allotments at point D that is attributable to the
increased shortfall on the distribution of funds that the hold-harmless rate
imposes. In Table 3, these are the states that have an “N” in both column (c) and
column (e).
• Hold-Harmless Level and Rate States. These states are subject to both the hold-
harmless level and the hold harmless rate provisions. An example of a typical
level and rate state is shown by the line that runs from $0 to point I. The hold-
harmless level is evident by the fixed state allotment from point C to point E.
However, the (subtle) jump at exactly $2.25 billion signals that this state is
subject to the hold-harmless rate provision. After the allotment jump at $2.25
billion, the state’s allotment continues to increase (at a rate lower than the old
rate, but higher than the new rate). In Table 3, these are the states that have a
“Y” in column (c) and a “Y” in the column (e).
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008

.

Figure B-1. Estimated LIHEAP Allocations at Various Hypothetical Appropriations Levels for Three Types of States

$120
Hold-Harmless Level
"Old"Formula
G
Hold-Harmless Rate
$100
Hold-Harmless
Level Only State
$80
H
)
A
ent
s
F
tm
llo
illion
$60
Ratably Reduced
m
State
e A
in
tat
S
($
Hold-Harmless
Level and Rate
State
$40
I
D
$20
B
C
E
$0
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Appropriation
($ in millions)

Source: Figure created by CRS using formula rates provided by HHS in February 2015.

CRS-28
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Appendix C. LIHEAP Regular Fund Allocations to
the States, FY2009-FY2015, and Estimated FY2016
Allocations
Table C-1, below, shows actual LIHEAP regular fund allocations to the states from FY2009
through FY2015 and estimated allocations for FY2016 based on the President’s budget request,
the FY2016 House Appropriations Committee-passed bill for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education (LHE), and the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed
LHE bill.
For FY2016, the President’s budget proposed a total of $3.19 billion for LIHEAP regular funds.
Of that amount, $462 million would be distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula, with
the remainder, about $2.7 billion, distributed according to the “old” formula percentages. The
budget request would set aside $3 million for training and technical assistance and $27 million for
leveraging incentive and REACH grants. Column (h) of Table C-1 shows estimated allocations to
the states based on the President’s budget.
The House Appropriations Committee-passed bill would provide $3.365 billion for LIHEAP
regular funds, with $491 million distributed according to the “new” formula and nearly $2.9
billion using the “old” formula. The bill would also set aside not-quite $3 million for training and
technical assistance, and, while it does not specify an amount for leveraging incentive and
REACH grants, the bill authorizes funds to be used for this purpose in its reference to the
authorizing statute. Column (i) of Table C-1 shows estimated allocations to the states at the level
proposed in the House Committee-passed bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill would provide the same level of regular funds
appropriated in FY2015, $3.39 billion. Of the total, $491 million would be distributed using the
“new” LIHEAP formula and the remainder using the “old” formula. Like the House Committee-
passed bill, the Senate Committee-passed bill authorizes funds to be used for leveraging incentive
and REACH grants, but does not specify an amount, and would provide nearly $3 million for
training and technical assistance. Column (j) of Table C-1 shows estimated allocations to the
states at the level proposed in the Senate Committee-passed bill.
The FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235) provided
$3.39 billion in LIHEAP regular funds. Of the total, $491 million was distributed according to the
“new” formula. Approximately $3 million was set aside for training and technical assistance, but
no funding was provided for leveraging incentive and REACH grants. Column (g) of Table C-1
contains allocations to the states in FY2015.
In FY2014, Congress appropriated approximately $3.425 billion for LIHEAP as part of the
Consolidated Appropriation Act (P.L. 113-76). Prior to distribution of funds, HHS reduced the
amount available by 1%, transferring $34.245 billion within the agency. Of the $3.390 billion
available, HHS increased the amount available for the territories to 0.5% of the total; this was the
first time since the program’s inception that the territorial allocation changed from 0.134%. Of the
amount available to the states and tribes, $491 million was distributed according to the “new”
formula and the remainder according to the “old” formula. See column (f) of Table C-1.
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Column (e) of Table C-1 contains actual regular fund allocations to the states in FY2013. The
amount appropriated for LIHEAP as part of the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) was the same as the FY2012 level—$3.472 billion for regular
funds, with $497 million distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula. However,
application of an across-the-board rescission of 0.2%, sequestration, and a transfer of funds
within HHS reduced the total amount available to $3.255 billion.
Column (d) contains actual allocations for FY2012 at an appropriations level of $3.472 billion
(P.L. 112-74). The law provided a total of $3.478 billion for LIHEAP regular funds, but the
amount was reduced by an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% for discretionary accounts,
resulting in the $3.472 billion funding level. P.L. 112-74 also provided that, of the amount
appropriated, all but $497 million be distributed according to the proportions of the “old”
LIHEAP formula. In addition, $3 million was set aside for training and technical assistance.
In FY2009 (P.L. 110-329), FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), and FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) Congress
appropriated $4.51 billion for LIHEAP formula funds. Of this amount, $840 million was
distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula and the remaining funds, approximately
$3.67 billion, according to the “old” formula. Column (c) of Table C-1 shows the allocations to
the states in FY2011, column (b) shows allocations to the states in FY2010, and column (a)
shows FY2009 allocations. Note that funds were not distributed in exactly the same way in each
year for several reasons. LIHEAP formula rates are updated each year, which affects the
percentage of funds that states receive. In addition, two factors changed the FY2011
appropriation. The appropriations bill subjected all discretionary accounts to an across-the-board
rescission of 0.2%, and HHS did not distribute leveraging incentive and REACH grants, making
the total available to the states slightly more than in FY2009 and FY2010.

Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008

.

Table C-1. LIHEAP Actual State Regular Fund Allocations for
FY2009 through FY2015 and Estimated Allocations for FY2016
($ in millions)

Actual Allocations, FY2009-FY2015
FY2016 Estimated Allocations
FY2016
FY2016 House FY2016 Senate
President’s Appropriations Appropriations
FY2009:
FY2010:
FY2011:
FY2012:
FY2013:
FY2014:
FY2015:
Budget:
Committee:
Committee:
$4.51
$4.51
$4.50
$3.47
$3.26
$3.39
$3.39
$3.19
$3.37
$3.39
Billiona
Billionb
Billionc
Billiond
Billione
Billionf
Billiong
Billionh
Billioni
Billionj
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Alabama
60.063
58.799 59.419 47.408 48.269 48.885 44.387 41.427
43.894
44.108
Alaska
23.568
25.308 23.667 18.002 17.171 18.841 17.482 16.411
17.357
17.494
Arizona
29.047
33.729 32.922 23.852 23.343 23.641 21.581 20.035
21.228
21.331
Arkansas
36.497
35.773 34.985 28.537 26.746 27.505 26.777 25.240
26.438
26.601
California 225.894
202.749 202.843 154.574 145.410 153.592 174.086 163.446
171.699
172.847
Colorado 63.474
64.257 62.139 47.308 44.270 46.378 48.889 45.318
48.057
48.457
Connecticut 95.783
96.942 98.254 79.532 76.014 77.413 85.764 80.847
84.678
85.200
Delaware 17.384
15.189 15.172 11.957 12.573 13.016 12.547 11.881
12.403
12.472
District of
14.653 13.992 14.051 10.687 9.976 10.474 10.379 9.743
10.304
10.386
Columbia
Florida
95.037

110.354 107.714 78.040 76.376 77.351 70.611 65.550
69.454
69.793
Georgia
75.141
87.252 85.164 61.702 60.387 61.158 55.829 51.827
54.914
55.182
Hawai
4.652
6.023 6.027 6.107 5.416 6.159 5.622 5.219
5.530
5.557
Idaho
26.939
26.939 27.052 20.576 19.207 20.166 19.982 18.758
19.840
19.996
Illinois
237.236
232.865 238.712 185.684 160.191 167.458 167.396 155.951
164.390
165.835
Indiana
103.609

104.151 102.749 80.006 72.374 75.820 75.792 70.610
74.431
75.086
Iowa
67.803
67.803 68.137 54.813 51.292 53.735 53.715 50.043
52.750
53.214
Kansas
45.349
41.757 42.327 32.160 31.397 31.019 30.717 28.761
30.274
30.487
CRS-31
c11173008

.

Actual Allocations, FY2009-FY2015
FY2016 Estimated Allocations
FY2016
FY2016 House FY2016 Senate
President’s Appropriations Appropriations
FY2009:
FY2010:
FY2011:
FY2012:
FY2013:
FY2014:
FY2015:
Budget:
Committee:
Committee:
$4.51
$4.51
$4.50
$3.47
$3.26
$3.39
$3.39
$3.19
$3.37
$3.39
Billiona
Billionb
Billionc
Billiond
Billione
Billionf
Billiong
Billionh
Billioni
Billionj
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Kentucky
68.353
57.742 58.335 46.423 43.483 48.288 44.896 41.819
44.188
44.529
Louisiana
57.196
51.870 53.164 43.422 40.864 42.062 38.390 36.301
37.935
38.153
Maine
49.457
54.309 53.539 39.982 37.414 39.195 39.181 36.502
38.477
38.816
Maryland 101.296
82.002 85.523 69.790 70.390 68.513 68.854 65.052
68.023
68.422
Massachusetts
162.981
175.524 175.178 132.731 132.256 140.014 146.328 136.789
144.156
145.200
Michigan
222.412
233.524 228.294 173.450 165.582 165.444 161.827 149.653
158.974
160.345
Minnesota 144.528
144.528 145.241 116.839 109.335 114.541 114.498 106.670
112.443
113.431
Mississippi 39.011
39.661 38.834 31.591 29.313 30.120 26.996 25.306
26.615
26.798
Missouri 103.541
95.257 95.596 68.231 66.553 70.882 73.772 68.583
72.571
73.148
Montana
31.598
31.598 31.730 24.135 22.529 23.654 23.438 22.002
23.271
23.454
Nebraska
39.573
39.573 39.738 30.226 28.214 29.623 29.353 27.555
29.143
29.373
Nevada
13.643
15.841 15.462 11.203 10.964 11.104 10.136 9.410
9.970
10.019
New
Hampshire
34.112
34.112 34.255 26.055 24.321 25.536 25.750 23.967
25.339
25.536
New
Jersey 166.690
177.196 180.991 136.746 124.480 124.570 126.586 117.839
124.570
125.539
New
Mexico 24.901
22.355 22.448 17.074 15.938 16.734 17.844 16.665
17.575
17.704
New
York 475.935
479.526 495.801 375.710 350.169 366.843 381.440 353.256
374.856
378.022
North
Carolina
123.243

109.339 111.263 83.011 87.702 88.271 86.504 81.955
85.523
85.995
North
Dakota
34.325
34.325 34.469 26.218 24.473 25.695 25.460 23.901
25.279
25.478
Ohio
220.588
223.108 225.398 165.463 144.794 154.314 148.087 137.962
145.428
146.706
CRS-32
c11173008

.

Actual Allocations, FY2009-FY2015
FY2016 Estimated Allocations
FY2016
FY2016 House FY2016 Senate
President’s Appropriations Appropriations
FY2009:
FY2010:
FY2011:
FY2012:
FY2013:
FY2014:
FY2015:
Budget:
Committee:
Committee:
$4.51
$4.51
$4.50
$3.47
$3.26
$3.39
$3.39
$3.19
$3.37
$3.39
Billiona
Billionb
Billionc
Billiond
Billione
Billionf
Billiong
Billionh
Billioni
Billionj
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
Oklahoma 49.007
47.902 47.717 36.094 35.955 37.147 36.338 34.439
35.929
36.126
Oregon
45.355
45.355 45.579 36.666 34.311 35.945 35.931 33.475
35.286
35.597
Pennsylvania 274.925
282.279 280.478 209.548 190.810 203.071 206.356 191.199
202.819
204.519
Rhode
Island 30.209
29.666 29.790 23.241 23.976 23.813 27.361 25.753
27.004
27.176
South
47.702
47.311 46.909 36.270 38.335 38.825 35.442 32.901
34.861
35.031
Carolina
South
Dakota 27.878
27.878 27.995 21.293 19.877 20.869 20.678 19.412
20.531
20.692
Tennessee 73.723
72.092 71.595 55.405 56.856 58.040 55.161 51.930
54.444
54.788
Texas
158.110
183.593 179.200 129.832 127.064 128.686 117.473 109.053
115.548
116.112
Utah
32.094
32.094 32.228 24.513 22.882 24.025 23.806 22.348
23.636
23.822
Vermont
25.568
25.568 25.675 19.529 18.230 19.140 18.965 17.804
18.830
18.978
Virginia
118.084

100.856 102.839 80.436 78.971 81.877 81.432 76.829
80.420
80.906
Washington 74.603
74.603 74.971 60.310 56.437 59.124 59.102 55.062
58.041
58.551
West
Virginia 40.584
38.884 39.047 29.700 27.723 29.108 28.842 27.076
28.636
28.861
Wisconsin 130.096
130.096 130.738 105.172 98.417 103.103 103.065 96.019
101.215
102.104
Wyoming 12.850

12.850 12.904 9.815 9.162 9.619 9.531 8.948
9.463
9.538
Total
4,476.302
4,476.302 4,494.258 3,437.068 3,248.193 3,370.409 3,370.379 3,144.502
3,318.639
3,343.514
Source: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided data on final regular fund al ocations for FY2008 through FY2015 (columns (a) through (g)).
Al ocations to the states include tribal al otments, and FY2016 estimates assume that approximately 0.5% of the total would be set aside for the territories.
a. Congress appropriated approximately $4.5 billion for LIHEAP as part of a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329). Of this amount, $840 million was allocated under the
“new” LIHEAP formula, with the remainder allocated according to the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula.
CRS-33
c11173008

.

b. In FY2010, Congress appropriated the same amount for LIHEAP regular funds as it had in FY2009—approximately $4.5 billion—with the same division of funds
between “old” and “new” formulas (P.L. 111-117). Although FY2010 LIHEAP funds were divided between the “old” and “new” formula in the same way as FY2009,
the awards to the states are different because the formula factors were updated in April 2009.
c. The FY2011 Department of Defense and Ful -Year Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-10) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% for discretionary
accounts. This reduced the LIHEAP regular fund appropriation from approximately $4.51 billion to $4.50 billion. In addition, unlike appropriations in most years,
HHS did not set aside funds for leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and instead included these funds in the formula grants to the states, bringing the total
distributed to $4.49 billion.
d. The FY2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74) included an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% that reduced the total available to $3,47 billion. Of
the amount appropriated, $497 mil ion was distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula and the remainder according to the proportions of the “old”
LIHEAP formula. In addition, the law provided $3 million for training and technical assistance.
e. In FY2013, Congress enacted a ful -year continuing resolution funding LIHEAP (and most other federal programs) at FY2012 levels (P.L. 113-6). While LIHEAP was
funded at $3.472 billion in FY2012, a series of deductions meant that the total available for LIHEAP in FY2013 was $3.255 billion.
f.
The FY2014 regular fund appropriation for LIHEAP (P.L. 113-76) was reduced by 1% ($34.245 million) due to a transfer of funds within HHS, bringing the amount
available to $3.390 billion. HHS did not distribute leveraging incentive and REACH grants, and it increased the territorial al ocation from 0.134% of total funds to
0.500%. Of the amount distributed to states and tribes by formula ($3.370 billion), $491 million was distributed according to the “new” formula and the remainder
according to the proportions of the “old” formula.
g. In FY2015, Congress appropriated $3.39 billion for LIHEAP regular funds as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). Of
the total, 0.5% was distributed to the territories, approximately $3 million went to training and technical assistance, and no funds were distributed for leveraging
incentive and REACH grants. Of the funds distributed to the states and tribes by formula, $491 mil ion was distributed according to the “new” formula, and the
remainder, approximately $2.9 billion, according to the proportions of the “old” formula.
h. The President’s FY2016 budget proposed that $3.19 billion be appropriated for regular funds, with $467 million distributed via the “new” formula. The budget also
proposed that $3 million be set aside for training and technical assistance and $27 million for leveraging incentive and REACH grants.
i.
The House Appropriations Committee-passed bill would appropriate $3.365 billion for LIHEAP regular funds, with $491 million distributed using the “new” formula.
The appropriations bill does not specify an amount for leveraging incentive and REACH grants, but does give the authority for them to be distributed, so the
estimates assume that HHS would set aside $27 million for this purpose. The bill would provide $2.988 million for training and technical assistance.
j.
The Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill would provide $3.39 billion for LIHEAP regular funds. Of that amount, $491 million would be distributed using
the “new” formula and the remainder using the “old” formula. The appropriations bill does not specify an amount for leveraging incentive and REACH grants, but
does give the authority for them to be distributed, so the estimates assume that HHS would set aside $27 million for this purpose. The bill would provide $2.988
mil ion for training and technical assistance.
CRS-34
c11173008

.
The LIHEAP Formula

Author Contact Information

Libby Perl

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

Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008