LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Contents

• Introduction
• Program Rules and Benefits
• How May LIHEAP Funds Be Used?
• Who May Receive Assistance?
• How Is LIHEAP Administered?
• Households Served
• Benefit Levels
• Types of LIHEAP Funds
• Regular Funds
• Tribal Allotments
• Funds for the Territories
• Emergency Contingency Funds
• Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds
• Other Federal Sources of Funds Available for Energy Assistance
• LIHEAP Appropriations
• The LIHEAP Program Year
• Recent LIHEAP Funding
• FY2017 LIHEAP Funding
• FY2016 LIHEAP Funding
• LIHEAP and Continuing Resolutions
• Other Issues
• Program Integrity
• Performance Measures

Summary

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), established in 1981 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), is a program through which the federal government makes annual grants to states, tribes, and territories to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of funds: regular funds (sometimes referred to as formula or block grant funds), which are allocated to all states using a statutory formula, and emergency contingency funds, which are allocated to one or more states at the discretion of the Administration in cases of emergency as defined by the LIHEAP statute.

States may use LIHEAP funds to help low-income households pay for heating and cooling costs, for crisis assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as counseling) to reduce the need for energy assistance. The LIHEAP statute establishes federal eligibility for households with incomes at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income, whichever is higher, although states may set lower limits.

Available federal information regarding use of LIHEAP funds and households assisted is dated. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) releases annual LIHEAP Reports to Congress, but the most recent report available is from FY2010. In its FY2017 budget justifications, HHS reported limited preliminary LIHEAP data for FY2014. Of funds expended for heating, cooling, crisis assistance, and weatherization, approximately 57% of funds went to pay for heating assistance, 8% was used for cooling aid, 25% went to crisis assistance, and 10% was used for weatherization. (Note that these percentages do not account for administrative expenses or services to reduce the need for energy assistance.) Also in FY2014, an estimated 6.3 million households received an average of $366 in heating assistance for the year.

In FY2016, Congress appropriated $3.39 billion for LIHEAP as part of the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113), all distributed as regular funds. The bill allocated $491 million of total regular funds according to the statutory, or "new," LIHEAP formula, and the remainder according to the "old" formula. Additionally, $3 million was set aside for training and technical assistance. As of the date of this report, HHS had distributed all but 1% of appropriated funds, with the first distribution announced October 23, 2015, and the second April 1, 2016. For state-by-state allocations, see Table B-1.

For FY2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill (S. 3040) proposes the same funding for LIHEAP as in FY2016—$3.39 billion for regular funds, with $491 million distributed using the new LIHEAP formula. The House Appropriations Committee-passed bill (H.R. 5926) would appropriate $100 million more for LIHEAP than in FY2016 and the Senate Committee bill, a total of $3.49 billion for regular funds. Under H.R. 5926, $591 million would be distributed using the new LIHEAP formula.

The President's FY2017 budget proposed that LIHEAP receive $3 billion in discretionary appropriations, all allocated as regular funds. The budget also included a proposal made in previous years, that emergency contingency funds be mandatory, with their availability triggered by increases in energy prices, extreme temperatures, or increased poverty as measured by participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The budget estimated that $769 million in emergency contingency funds would be made available under this formulation in FY2017.

---

LIHEAP: Program and Funding

Introduction

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established by Title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a program through which the federal government gives states, tribes, and territories annual grants to operate home energy assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute provides for two primary types of program funding: regular funds (sometimes referred to as block grant or formula funds) and emergency contingency funds. Regular funds are allotted to states according to a formula prescribed by the LIHEAP statute.¹ Emergency contingency funds may be released and allotted to one or more states at the discretion of the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The first section of this report discusses LIHEAP program rules and benefits, including household eligibility and how funds may be used, and presents the most recent data available from HHS regarding household characteristics and benefit levels (see "Program Rules and Benefits"). The second section of this report discusses each category of LIHEAP funds and how they are distributed to states, tribes, and territories (see "Types of LIHEAP Funds"). The third section discusses LIHEAP funding and appropriations (see "LIHEAP Appropriations"). Appendix A describes the legislative history of energy assistance, leading up to and including the enactment of LIHEAP (see "Legislative History of Energy Assistance"). Finally, Appendix B contains tables showing recent LIHEAP allocations to the states, as well as appropriations for the program since its inception.

Program Rules and Benefits

Federal LIHEAP requirements are minimal and leave most important program decisions to the states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations that receive federal funds (collectively referred to in this report as "grantees"). The law governing LIHEAP sets up most requirements as part of a list of "assurances" that grantees must make when they apply to HHS for funds.² For example, grantees must make assurances about the sorts of energy assistance they will provide, who will be served, and how funds will be administered. The LIHEAP statute contains 16 assurances that govern various aspects of how the program operates at the state, tribe, or territorial level. This section discusses how grantees implement the assurances to provide energy assistance to low-income households.

How May LIHEAP Funds Be Used?

The LIHEAP statute outlines the ways in which grantees may use funds.³

• Funds may be used to help households meet their home energy costs by making payments for heating and cooling expenses.⁴ All state grantees provide heating assistance to households, while a smaller number provide cooling assistance. See Table 1.
• States must reserve funds to assist when households face an energy crisis,⁵ defined as "weather-related and supply shortage emergencies and other household energy-related emergencies."⁶ Within this definition, states determine the circumstances under which they will provide assistance. For example, generally states provide crisis assistance to households that are in danger of losing their heating or cooling due to problems with equipment, receipt of a utility shutoff notice, or exhaustion of a fuel supply.⁷
• Funds may be used for low-cost weatherization projects. Grantees are limited to using 15% of their allotment for weatherization unless a grantee has a waiver from HHS for up to 25%.⁸
• Grantees may use funds to provide services to reduce the need for energy assistance (e.g., needs assessment, counseling on how to reduce energy consumption) limited to 5% of the allotment.⁹
• Funds may be used for program administration, limited to 10% of the allotment.¹⁰

The greatest share of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home heating costs. In FY2010 (the most recent year for which detailed HHS data are publicly available), approximately 54% of all LIHEAP funds was used to provide heating assistance; all states (including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance.¹² All states also offered crisis assistance, most of which was used for heating needs;¹³ in FY2010, 18% of LIHEAP funds was used in the category of winter/year-round crisis assistance in 47 states and summer crisis assistance in seven states.¹⁴ Also in FY2010, 5% of funds went for cooling aid (offered by 17 states); 8% of total LIHEAP funds was used for weatherization services (provided by 43 states); 7% of available funds went for administration and planning purposes (51 states); and 1% of the FY2010 funds was used to offer services to reduce the need for energy assistance (provided by 29 states).¹⁵

Who May Receive Assistance?

Basic Eligibility: Federal law sets out parameters that grantees must follow in establishing eligibility for LIHEAP assistance. The statute establishes households as the unit that is eligible for LIHEAP assistance (versus a family). A household consists of an "individual or group of individuals who are living together as one economic unit for whom residential energy is customarily purchased in common or who make undesignated payments for energy in the form of rent."¹⁶ Grantees must have a system in place for a household denied assistance to appeal.¹⁷

• Eligibility Based on Income: Grantees have the option of setting LIHEAP eligibility for households at or below 150% of the federal poverty income guidelines or, if greater, 60% of the state median income.¹⁸ States may adopt lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the poverty guidelines may be considered ineligible.
• Eligibility Based on Receipt of Other Benefits: Grantees may separately choose to make eligible for LIHEAP assistance any household of which at least one member is a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), or certain needs-tested veterans' programs.¹⁹

The LIHEAP statute does not impose an asset test in establishing eligibility, but states may choose to limit client assets. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other state or federal aid programs.²⁰ For example, this means that a LIHEAP payment would not count toward the income or resources of a family applying for SNAP, housing assistance, or other types of assistance programs. Each year, the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, through a contract with HHS, makes available state eligibility guidelines on its website.²¹

Vulnerable and High-Need Populations: The LIHEAP statute requires that grantees conduct outreach to eligible households, "especially" households with elderly individuals, individuals with disabilities, or that have high energy burdens (home energy expenditures divided by income), to ensure that they are aware of LIHEAP availability.²²

Grantees must further ensure that households with the lowest incomes, together with the highest home energy need in relation to income, receive the highest level of assistance.²³ This provision was added to the law as part of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-252) with the intention of ensuring that both income and energy burden together were considered so that grantees would target households that are "most drastically burdened" and who have the "highest health risk."²⁴

Owners and Renters: Under the LIHEAP statute, grantees must treat owners and renters "equitably."²⁵ The way in which renters pay utilities may differ from homeowners, where, in some cases, payments for heating and cooling are included in rent rather than paid directly by the tenant. However, this should not affect eligibility for LIHEAP.

In addition, the issue of how to treat renters living in housing subsidized through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been raised in the past. In general, HUD housing subsidies are based both on rent levels and reasonable utility expenses. Tenants pay approximately 30% of their income toward the total rent and utility costs, and HUD subsidizes the remainder of the total. In cases where tenants pay their utilities directly (rather than as part of their rent), they are reimbursed for the HUD share of utilities through a utility allowance, which generally comes in the form of a rent reduction. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation to make clear that states may not automatically deny LIHEAP benefits to subsidized tenants who pay their utilities directly and receive utility allowances.²⁶ However, states may take utility allowances into account when determining the amount of benefits subsidized renters may receive. On its website, the LIHEAP Clearinghouse compiles state policies regarding renters.²⁷

How Is LIHEAP Administered?

Federal rules allow grantees to decide the mix and dollar range of benefits, choose how benefits are provided (e.g., to utilities or directly to households), and decide which agencies will administer the program. Grantees provide details to HHS about program operation via a state plan submitted each year,²⁸ and they are to provide a method for public participation in the state plan's development.²⁹

The state agency administering LIHEAP is to coordinate with other low-income programs, including the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).³⁰ To the extent possible, grantees are encouraged to follow WAP rules in order to increase consistency between the two weatherization components.³¹ LIHEAP grantees are also required to establish fiscal control and accounting procedures, which include a way of monitoring the assistance that is provided.³²

At the state level, many LIHEAP administrative functions such as intake and application processing are often delegated to local level agencies. In the early years of energy assistance, prior to the existence of LIHEAP, funds were administered by local Community Action Agencies (CAAs). This relationship continued when LIHEAP was enacted in 1981. The LIHEAP statute provides that, if a state designates local agencies to administer the program, then they agree to "give special consideration" to public or private nonprofit agencies receiving funds for low-income energy assistance or weatherization prior to LIHEAP's enactment.³³ According to the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, in 30 states CAAs are involved in administering funds, another 13 states have local programs administered by the counties, and the remaining states are either administered at the state level or by nonprofit groups.³⁴ In most cases, LIHEAP benefits are given directly to utilities or fuel oil suppliers to be applied to recipients' accounts rather than directly to recipients. An exception to this may occur in cases of renters whose utility payments are included in rent and who do not have their own account.

Households Served

Unlike some other federal assistance programs, such as Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), simply being eligible for LIHEAP does not entitle a household to LIHEAP benefits. Available benefits are limited by the amount that Congress appropriates each year, so the number of households that are served in a given year depends both on appropriations and how grantees use their funding.

In FY2011, the most recent year for which HHS data are publicly available, an estimated 7.6 million households received heating and/or winter crisis assistance (the bulk of LIHEAP assistance that is provided).³⁵ While the number of recipients was down from 8.1 million in FY2010, households served continued to be significantly higher than in years preceding FY2009, when Congress appropriated the most funding ever received by the program. Congress appropriated $5.1 billion for LIHEAP in both FY2009 and FY2010, and $4.7 billion in FY2011 (compared to $2.59 billion in FY2008). In FY2009, an estimated 7.4 million households received assistance, an increase of 2 million compared to FY2008, when an estimated 5.4 million households were served.³⁶ Increased households served could also in part result from nominal LIHEAP benefits given to some households to leverage SNAP assistance (see the text box "Households Receiving Nominal LIHEAP Benefits").

Prior to FY2009, the most households were served shortly after LIHEAP was enacted, when approximately 6.8 million households received heating and/or winter crisis assistance in FY1983. After that time, the number of households receiving assistance declined generally until FY2000, reaching a low of 3.6 million recipients in FY1999. After FY2000, the number of recipient households began increasing again to the current level. For the number of households receiving LIHEAP from FY2000 through FY2011, see Table 2.

The same trend can be seen in the percentage of federally eligible households that receive heating and/or winter crisis assistance. In FY1983, the 6.8 million households that received funds represented 31% of federally eligible households. By FY2000, the number of federally eligible households receiving LIHEAP heating and/or winter crisis assistance had dropped to 13%. After FY2003, the percentage of federally eligible households receiving assistance hovered between 14% and 16%, settling at 16% for FY2006 through FY2008. However, in FY2009 and FY2010, with increased funding for LIHEAP, 21% and 22% of those households federally eligible under the LIHEAP statute were served, respectively.³⁹ In FY2011, 19% of federally eligible households were served.⁴⁰

FY2010 and FY2011 saw the highest number of households receiving cooling and/or summer crisis assistance—1.1 million households in each year, compared to 900,000 in FY2009.⁴¹ Prior to FY2009, the number of households receiving cooling and/or summer crisis assistance reached a high point of 700,000 recipients in FY2006.⁴²

HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance in FY2010 (the most recent publicly available data with more detailed information about receipt), about 29% had at least one member 60 years of age or older; about 31% had at least one member with a disability; and 23% included at least one child five years of age or younger.⁴³ Households may include members in more than one of the three categories. Although some states set LIHEAP eligibility as high as 60% of state median income, on average, LIHEAP households served have very low incomes. In FY2010, 69% of households receiving heating assistance had incomes at or below 100% of poverty and 75% of households receiving cooling assistance were at or below the poverty level.⁴⁴

Benefit Levels

Apart from federal funding levels, a variety of factors help determine to what extent LIHEAP is able to meet its stated goal of assisting low-income households in meeting their home energy needs. These include the following:

• the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price fluctuations and variation in kinds of fuels used);
• the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the weather, energy efficiency of housing, and expected standards of comfort); and
• the number of eligible households (influenced by population size and health of the economy).

The average LIHEAP benefit varies by state. For example, in FY2010, the most recent year in which state-by-state data are available, the average heating benefit nationwide was $391, with a range from $90 (Mississippi) to $2,612 (Alaska).⁴⁵ The average benefit for cooling assistance, available in 17 states in FY2010, was $293, ranging from $52 (Indiana) to $916 (Texas).

One way of looking at LIHEAP benefits over time is to measure them in constant dollars. Each year, the HHS LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook presents average heating and winter crisis benefits in nominal dollars and constant 1981 dollars (the year in which LIHEAP was enacted). Until FY2009, when funding for the program increased by more than $2 billion compared to the previous fiscal year, the general trend in the constant dollar value of LIHEAP benefits since the program's beginning had been one of decline. In FY1981, the average heating and winter crisis benefit, measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $213.⁴⁶ By FY1998, it had declined to $117, and although the average benefit reached $187 in FY2001, it generally declined again thereafter, with the exception of $171 in FY2006, when funding was higher than in the immediately preceding and subsequent years. In FY2009, the constant dollar value of the average LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefit increased by about $58 from the previous year, to $209.⁴⁷ By FY2011, with funding down slightly, the average benefit in constant dollars was $184.⁴⁸ (See Table 2.)

The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is available to a more limited number of households in far fewer states, has fluctuated over the years. While the average benefit in 1981 was $129, in the years that followed the average benefit in constant 1981 dollars declined as low as $57 in FY1983 and $49 in FY1990. However, the average benefit grew from FY1990 levels, and by FY2000 and FY2001 the average benefit had reached $107. In recent years, between FY2004 and FY2008, the constant dollar value has ranged from $72 (in FY2008) to $105 (in FY2006). After FY2009, when funding for LIHEAP increased significantly, the constant dollar value of cooling and summer crisis benefits rose to $142.⁴⁹ In FY2011, the average constant dollar benefit was $126.⁵⁰

Types of LIHEAP Funds

The LIHEAP statute authorizes several separate distributions of LIHEAP funds.⁵¹ The bulk of funds are distributed as "regular" funds, sometimes also referred to as formula or block grant funds. The regular funds are distributed via formula to the states and the District of Columbia. Tribes receive a share of state funding, while a percentage of regular funds is set aside for territories. The LIHEAP statute also authorizes emergency contingency funds, which may be distributed to one or more states, tribes, or territories at the discretion of the Administration. The statute also authorizes a smaller amount of funds for Leveraging Incentive grants, which are distributed to grantees that leverage non-federal resources for their energy assistance programs. And a portion of Leveraging Incentive grants may be used for competitive Residential Energy Assistance Challenge (REACH) grants that grantees may use for various purposes that improve the energy security of vulnerable low-income families.

Despite the different distribution methods, grantees may use each form of funding for the eligible activities under LIHEAP (e.g., heating and cooling assistance, emergency crisis assistance, and weatherization).

Regular Funds

When LIHEAP was created in 1981, the only funds available were regular funds, which were distributed to the states via a formula developed under the predecessor program to LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (see Appendix A). Regular funds continue to be distributed to the states via a formula, though it was changed in 1984 as part of the Human Services Reauthorization Act (P.L. 98-558). The history and operation of the formula are complicated, and the issues are addressed in a separate report, CRS Report RL33275, The LIHEAP Formula, by [author name scrubbed]. Tribes and territories are not directly included in the LIHEAP formula distribution, and the way in which they receive regular funds is described in more detail, below. Regular funds have not been authorized since FY2007, when they were authorized at $5.1 billion (P.L. 109-58).

Tribal Allotments

Indian tribes and tribal organizations have the option to request that they receive and administer their own allotments of LIHEAP funds.⁵² Tribal allotments may be based on the number of low-income households (as defined by the LIHEAP statute) residing on a reservation and any adjacent trust land as a proportion of all low-income households in the state. Alternatively, a tribe may work out its funding level with the state and enter into an agreement for an amount to be allocated. A tribe's allotment is then taken from the state's LIHEAP allocation. There are tribes in 25 states that administer their own LIHEAP funds.⁵³

Funds for the Territories

The LIHEAP statute provides that at least one-tenth, but not more than one-half of 1% of the total regular fund appropriation must be set aside for energy assistance in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. HHS sets the exact percentage of funds that goes to the territories. In FY2014, HHS set aside 0.5% of funding for the territories, the first time that funding had reached the maximum allowed by the statute. This set-aside has continued in appropriations since FY2014.

Prior to FY2014, and since the inception of the program, the set-aside for territories had been approximately 0.134% of regular funds. This percentage was based on the amount of funding that the territories received under LIEAP, the predecessor program to LIHEAP. For that program, Congress made $2.5 million available to the territories. Prior to implementation of LIHEAP, in 1981, the territories asked HHS that more funding be provided.⁵⁴ However, according to HHS, it decided to provide the same approximate percentage of LIHEAP funding to the territories as was provided as part of LIEAP, concluding that

[HHS] should retain the funding levels originally proposed, since they are based on a congressional determination of need for the 1981 program, and the comments did not include any information demonstrating that changed conditions required a higher relative level of funding as compared to the States than existed in 1981.⁵⁵

HHS allocates funds among the five territories based on population, with Puerto Rico receiving approximately 90% of funds. For the most recent allocations to the territories, see the end of Table B-1.

Emergency Contingency Funds

Unlike LIHEAP regular funds, emergency contingency funds are not distributed by formula. Instead, they are to be distributed at the Administration's discretion "to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more states arising from a natural disaster or other emergency."⁵⁶ The two terms are defined as follows:

• "Emergency" includes a natural disaster; a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption; significant increases in the cost of home energy, home energy disconnections, participation in public benefit programs, or unemployment; or an "event meeting such criteria as the [HHS] Secretary may determine to be appropriate."⁵⁷
• A "natural disaster" is defined as "a weather event (relating to hot or cold weather)," floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, or other events as determined by the Secretary.⁵⁸

Since the creation of the emergency contingency fund, funds have been released to grantees for various reasons, including energy price increases, extreme periods of hot or cold weather, and damage caused by natural disasters. In cases of natural disasters, grantees may be flexible in the ways they assist households, particularly those without power due to damaged or destroyed homes. According to HHS guidance, funds may be used to pay for temporary shelter, for transportation to shelter, coats and blankets, as well as for utility reconnection and equipment replacement.⁵⁹

Congress has appropriated emergency contingency funds in every year since the funds have been authorized with the exceptions of FY2003 (when funds appropriated in a previous year were available for distribution), and FY2012 through FY2015. In addition, just because Congress appropriates funds does not mean that the Administration releases them to grantees. In a number of years that Congress appropriated funds, HHS released only a portion of the funds available (see Table B-3).

Some form of emergency contingency funds was first appropriated in FY1991, although the funds were not authorized until enactment of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-252). Like the genesis of federal energy assistance programs in general, appropriations for energy-related emergencies grew out of high heating oil prices coupled with cold temperatures.⁶⁰ Congress appropriated $200 million in FY1991 and referred to the program as an "Energy Emergency Contingency Fund" (see P.L. 101-517).⁶¹ Congress permanently authorized emergency contingency funding at $600 million in FY1994, and they have remained authorized at that same level.

Emergency Designation

On occasion, LIHEAP emergency contingency funds were designated as "emergency" for purposes of budget scoring. The LIHEAP authorizing statute provided that emergency contingency funds would be designated as emergency for purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended by the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 (enacted as part of P.L. 101-508).⁶² The BEA used spending limits to reduce the deficit. However, funds that were designated as an emergency by both the President and in statute were not included in the spending limits.⁶³ Congress first designated emergency contingency funds as "emergency" for budgetary purposes in FY1992 and FY1993 appropriations acts, and then incorporated the language into the LIHEAP statute upon the inclusion of the emergency contingency fund in the law.⁶⁴ The BEA expired in 2002, and while the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) further amended the law with new procedures to reduce the deficit, the statutory reference to emergency contingency funds as an emergency designation pursuant to the BEA is no longer operative.⁶⁵

Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds

LIHEAP does not require grantees to match the federal funds they receive. However, a portion of LIHEAP funds may be used for grants based on the amount of outside funds that grantees obtain for energy assistance. These Leveraging Incentive grants were authorized in 1990, when P.L. 101-501 amended the LIHEAP statute to provide a separate funding authorization of $50 million ($30 million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for incentive grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP programs.⁶⁶ Such resources might include negotiated lower energy rates for low-income households or separate state funds for energy assistance. States are awarded incentive funds in a given fiscal year on the basis of a formula that takes into account their previous fiscal year's success in securing non-federal resources for their energy assistance program.

In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) the statute was further amended to provide that, of any Leveraging Incentive grants appropriated, up to 25% may be set aside for the Residential Energy Assistance Challenge Option (REACH). Under the REACH option states may be awarded competitive grants for their efforts to increase the efficiency of energy usage among low-income families and to reduce those families' vulnerability to homelessness and other health and safety risks due to high energy costs.

The funding authorization for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is separate from regular funds, and the grants have not been authorized since FY2004. In practice, Congress has regularly funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set aside out of annual regular fund appropriations. However, from FY2013 through FY2015, funds were not set aside for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants.

Other Federal Sources of Funds Available for Energy Assistance

For a time, beginning in the mid-1980s, additional funds were available to LIHEAP grantees via funds recovered as the result of oil company overcharges that violated price controls instituted in 1973 as part of the Emergency Fuels and Energy Allocation Act (P.L. 93-159). In cases where aggrieved parties could not be identified for reimbursement, funds were distributed to states to be used for energy efficiency purposes, including LIHEAP.⁶⁷ Oil overcharge funds that were allocated to LIHEAP reached a peak of $174 million in FY1989, and had diminished to $200,000 by FY2008, the most recent year for which HHS has data available.⁶⁸

In addition, the Social Services Block Grant program allows states to transfer up to 10% of funds to provide low-income home energy assistance, among other purposes.⁶⁹ The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program also gives states the discretion to use funds for home heating and cooling costs.⁷⁰

LIHEAP Appropriations

The LIHEAP Program Year

The federal government's fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30, is not ideally placed for a program like LIHEAP. Most states release the bulk of their LIHEAP funds during the winter months, shortly after federal appropriations are to be finalized. Further, in recent years, appropriations often have not been finalized until well after the fiscal year is underway. This may require states to enter the winter months without certainty as to the amount of funds they will receive.

LIHEAP was not always funded exactly in concert with the federal fiscal year. Beginning in FY1990, for four years (through FY1993) Congress provided "delayed funding" for the program, making a portion of funds available on the last day of the fiscal year. The funds were for purposes of "starting up activities" for the following winter's program.⁷¹ These amounts were small initially, totaling $60 million in FY1990 (P.L. 101-166) and $75 million in FY1991 (P.L. 101-517), but growing to $406 million in FY1992 (P.L. 102-170) and $688 million in FY1993 (P.L. 102-394).

Then, in FY1993, Congress amended the LIHEAP statute to change the way that the program was funded, recognizing the difficulty for grantees in running a program with little advance notice of the funding level for the coming year.⁷² As part of the Augustus F. Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501), Congress provided that LIHEAP be funded on a program year cycle, from July 1 to June 30, with appropriations made in the fiscal year in which the program year started. This funding structure is referred to as "forward funding." According to the Senate committee report (where the forward funding provision originated), forward funding was meant to give grantees time to plan once they knew how much funding would be available.

Despite the statutory language, Congress never actually appropriated funds for a program year as forward funding, and instead provided advance appropriations for LIHEAP. Advance appropriations are simply made for the fiscal year subsequent to the year in which funds are appropriated. From FY1994 through FY2001, Congress provided advance appropriations for LIHEAP in every year but one (FY1997). When Congress enacted the FY2001 appropriations law, it did not provide advance appropriations for FY2002. While Congress acknowledged the benefits of advance funding,⁷³ it appears that the failure to provide advance funding was due to budget caps for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill.⁷⁴ Since FY2002, LIHEAP appropriations have been made for the current fiscal year.

Recent LIHEAP Funding

FY2017 LIHEAP Funding

For FY2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed its Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education (LHE) Appropriations bill on June 9, 2016. The bill, S. 3040, would provide $3.39 billion for LIHEAP, the same amount appropriated in FY2016. All funds would be distributed as regular funds, with $491 million allocated according to the "new" LIHEAP formula, and the remainder based on the "old" LIHEAP formula. (For more information about the LIHEAP formula, see CRS Report RL33275, The LIHEAP Formula, by [author name scrubbed].)

The House Appropriations Committee-passed LHE bill (H.R. 5926) would increase LIHEAP funding by $100 million relative to both the Senate committee-passed bill and the FY2016 funding level, providing a total of $3.49 billion for LIHEAP, all regular funds. Of the amount appropriated, $591 million would be distributed based on the new LIHEAP formula, and the remainder using the old formula. Both H.R. 5926 and S. 3040 would set aside $3 million for training and technical assistance, and neither bill specifies an amount for leveraging incentive and REACH grants.

The President proposed to provide $3.0 billion in discretionary funding for LIHEAP, all for regular funds. Of the amount appropriated, $27 million would be for leveraging incentive and REACH grants and $3 million for training and technical assistance. The President's budget also proposed that $435 million be allocated according to the statutory LIHEAP formula, and the remainder according to the percentages of the "old" LIHEAP formula.

The President's budget also included a proposal to allow states to use up to 40% of their LIHEAP grants for weatherization. Currently the statute limits funds that can be used for weatherization to 15% of the total, though states may go up to 25% with a waiver from HHS. A similar proposal was introduced in the FY2016 budget, but unlike that proposal, the FY2017 proposal did not include a requirement that states use at least 10% of their grant for weatherization.

Another proposal revived in the FY2017 President's budget was to make emergency contingency funds available based on increases in energy prices, extreme temperatures, or the number of households in poverty as measured by participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The funding available for emergency contingency funds would be mandatory and capped at $1 billion. The Administration estimated that in FY2017, $769 million would be released pursuant to this proposal.

FY2016 LIHEAP Funding

In FY2016, funding for LIHEAP was appropriated as part of the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113) enacted on December 18, 2015. Prior to its enactment, LIHEAP and most federal programs were funded by three continuing resolutions, the first through December 11, 2015, the second through December 16, 2015, and the third until enactment of P.L. 114-113.⁷⁵ Congress appropriated $3.39 billion for LIHEAP, all for regular funds, the same amount that was appropriated in FY2015. Of the total, P.L. 113-235 directed that $491 million be distributed according to the provisions of the "new" LIHEAP formula, and the remainder, approximately $2.9 billion, according to the proportions of the "old" LIHEAP formula. (For more information about the way LIHEAP funds are distributed according to the "new" and "old" formulas, see CRS Report RL33275, The LIHEAP Formula, by [author name scrubbed].) The appropriations bill also provided that not more than $2.988 million be available for training and technical assistance; no level was specified for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants.

On October 23, 2015, HHS announced that approximately $3 billion would be released to states, tribes, and territories pursuant to the CR. On April 1, 2016, HHS announced the release of an additional $336 million. As of the date of this report, approximately 1% of the amount appropriated had not yet been distributed. For the distribution of funds, see Table B-1.

LIHEAP and Continuing Resolutions

OMB determines the amount of LIHEAP funding that is released to the states pursuant to a CR.⁷⁶ Despite the fact that the program is technically funded at the previous year's level, states do not necessarily receive the same amount of LIHEAP funding that they received in the previous year. This is due to a standard provision in continuing resolutions that states the following:

[F]or those programs that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of appropriations at the beginning of fiscal year 2016 because of distributions of funding to States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, such high initial rates of operation or complete distribution shall not be made, and no grants shall be awarded for such programs funded by this Act that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.⁷⁷

The provision is meant to ensure that funds for a program that are released under a CR do not exceed the amount that Congress ultimately appropriates for it or influence Congress in its appropriations decision. Typically, states are eligible to receive their entire LIHEAP formula allocations in the first quarter of the fiscal year if they so choose, qualifying as a program "that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of appropriations" at the beginning of the fiscal year as stipulated in the CR.

OMB may gauge the amount of LIHEAP funding to release, in part, based on appropriations bills in the House or Senate or, in their absence, on the President's budget proposal. For example, if a proposed funding level in one chamber is lower than what is proposed in the other, then the amount subject to release could be based on the lower proposal (in the event that Congress would ultimately enact the lower funding level).

Other Issues

Program Integrity

In June 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report about the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) entitled Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Greater Fraud Prevention Controls Are Needed. The GAO report found instances of benefit payments to ineligible applicants based on various factors, including the use of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) from deceased or imprisoned individuals as well as the under-reporting of income or over-reporting of household members.⁷⁸ In another instance, the GAO set up a fake utility company and through fake applicants was able to obtain LIHEAP benefits.

GAO recommended ways in which HHS could prevent instances of fraud such as these in the future. Among the recommendations in the report were requiring applicants to provide SSNs and checking applicant information against various databases (e.g., Social Security Administration data, state vital records, and state directories of new hires).

HHS reacted to the GAO report and its recommendations in several ways:

• The agency issued guidance that encouraged states to require LIHEAP applicants to divulge their SSNs. The LIHEAP statute and regulations do not require grantee states, tribes, and territories to collect SSNs or to verify applicant eligibility against specific databases, and not all states follow such verification procedures. Further, pursuant to the Privacy Act, HHS cannot require states to collect SSNs as part of the LIHEAP application process. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-455) authorizes states to use SSNs in administering certain programs, including "general public assistance" programs,⁷⁹ which HHS has interpreted to include LIHEAP.⁸⁰ As a result, HHS released guidance that the law "authorizes States to require SSNs as a condition of eligibility for use in verifying the identity of individual applicants and their household members." As of FY2011, 40 states required LIHEAP applicants to provide SSNs, compared to 28 in FY2010.⁸¹
• HHS released an Action Transmittal asking states to supplement the information they provide to HHS for FY2011 to show that they are working to prevent improper payments, fraud, waste, or abuse.⁸² The LIHEAP statute directs the HHS Secretary to establish regulations to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.⁸³ The regulations in turn require grantees to establish systems and procedures to prevent these activities among clients, vendors, and administering agencies.⁸⁴ However, the same section of the statute also states that "[t]he Secretary may not prescribe the manner in which the States will comply with the provisions of this subsection."⁸⁵ So while each year states must submit a plan to HHS in which they make "assurances" that they will comply with statutory requirements, there is no specific way that they must go about this. HHS suggested that states report on compliance monitoring, fraud reporting mechanisms, verifying applicant identities, cross-checking SSNs, and verifying applicant income, among others.⁸⁶
• HHS also assembled a Program Integrity Working Group to recommend ways in which the agency could address some of the issues raised. The working group released a report in April 2012.⁸⁷ Among its recommendations were that (1) grantees require applicants to provide SSNs, but should provide for exceptions due to the emergency nature of LIHEAP, (2) HHS collaborate with other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, to help with verification of identity and income, (3) HHS conduct a cost-benefit analysis of third party verification, and (4) grantees enter into vendor agreements that include provisions to prevent vendor fraud.

Performance Measures

At the direction of OMB, beginning in 2008, HHS staff, together with LIHEAP state directors, have worked to arrive at a set of performance measures that would guide data collection and serve as a way of examining outcomes resulting from LIHEAP assistance.⁸⁸ The performance measures are also intended to respond to some of the issues raised in the GAO report described in the previous section.

On June 6, 2013, HHS published a proposed information collection (and request for comment) in the Federal Register, with three primary performance measures proposed.⁸⁹ Each performance measure would require collection of several types of data.

• The Average Reduction in Energy Burden for Households Receiving Fuel Assistance: Within this measure, data collected and reported would include the average annual income of LIHEAP recipient households, average LIHEAP benefits, the number of LIHEAP recipient households that use each primary heating source, annual heating fuel consumption by LIHEAP recipient households, and electricity consumption for cooling.
• The Percent of Unduplicated Households Where LIHEAP Prevented a Potential Home Energy Crisis: Among the data collected for this performance measure would be the number of households receiving utility past due or disconnect notices, the number receiving a notice from a bulk fuel vendor of an unpaid balance, the number of households who deplete deliverable fuel sources, and the number of households where LIHEAP benefits resulted in repair or replacement of heating or cooling equipment.
• The Percent of Unduplicated Households Where LIHEAP Benefits Restored Home Energy: This measure would involve identifying households where LIHEAP resulted in utility reconnection, purchase of bulk fuel, or repair or replacement of heating or cooling equipment.

While LIHEAP state grantees would be the entities required to collect and report the data to HHS, information on fuel and electricity consumption would require input from fuel vendors and utility companies.

Appendix A. Legislative History of Energy Assistance

LIHEAP was not the first federal energy assistance program created to help low-income households with their energy bills. Congressional appropriations for home energy assistance initially came about in the 1970s at the time of the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) Oil Embargo of 1973-1974. In the fall of that year, a number of countries in the Middle East stopped exporting oil to the United States, a stoppage that continued until March of 1974.⁹⁰ Prices of heating oil rose, while supplies were restricted. What followed were several years in which Congress directed funds to assistance focused on lowering energy bills through weatherization and education. Later in the 1970s, assistance evolved to include crisis assistance for households facing shutoff or other emergencies, followed by a system of direct payments to subsidize the energy bills of low-income households. When LIHEAP was enacted, direct assistance for energy bills was the focus of the program, but all of these forms of assistance―weatherization, education, and crisis assistance―were made part of the program and continue to be eligible uses of funds. This appendix discusses the evolution of energy assistance in the 1970s and early 1980s, culminating in the creation of LIHEAP in 1982.

Energy Assistance Programs Prior to LIHEAP

The first federal funds for energy assistance were the outgrowth of a program that was created in Maine just after the start of the oil embargo by OPEC countries. In 1973, the Maine Office of Economic Opportunity applied to the federal Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO, the federal agency in charge of administering War on Poverty programs in the 1960s and 1970s) to fund a project they had conceived of called "Project Fuel." Energy costs, particularly the costs of heating oil and wood, were growing in Maine, and the state determined that it would assist low-income and elderly households in meeting their energy needs.⁹¹ OEO approved funding for the state at the end of 1973. Project FUEL used funding primarily to help "winterize" homes, but also to provide crisis counseling, and purchase fuel for use in emergency situations such as equipment breakdown or when dealers ran out of fuel.⁹²

Project Fuel prompted what would become the first federal program to assist low-income households during the energy crisis, the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (EECP, P.L. 93-644) enacted as part of the Headstart, Economic Opportunity, and Community Partnership Act at the beginning of 1975.⁹³ The law authorized the Community Services Administration (CSA, which replaced the OEO as part of the same bill) to use funds primarily for weatherization and conservation purposes, but also gave the authority to use funds for fuel voucher or stamp programs. Community Action Agencies, Community Development Corporations, state Offices of Economic Opportunity, and other public or private nonprofit organizations were eligible to apply to administer the funds.⁹⁴ Congress first appropriated funds for the EECP in FY1975, $16.5 million, as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 94-32).⁹⁵ Congress continued to appropriate funds for the Emergency Energy Conservation Program (to be used primarily for weatherization purposes) through FY1978.⁹⁶

The EECP came to an end with the advent of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), created in 1976 as part of P.L. 94-385 and administered by the Federal Energy Administration (the predecessor to the Department of Energy). WAP was meant to be a supplement to the EECP, not to replace it.⁹⁷ However, the programs were similar. Community Action Agencies administered WAP funds and weatherized homes of low-income households. By FY1979, the Administration proposed that weatherization funds be made available only through the DOE program. In that year and thereafter, Congress stopped funding the CSA weatherization program and only appropriated funds to the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program.

At the same time that weatherization assistance was phased out of the CSA, the agency began to administer direct assistance to low-income households to help pay their energy bills. In FY1977, as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 95-26), Congress appropriated $200 million to be used through the CSA for a Special Crisis Intervention Program. P.L. 95-26, which was debated and enacted in the spring of 1977, came just after an unusually cold winter in which both fuel usage and prices had been high, resulting in large numbers of consumers facing utility disconnection.⁹⁸ Unlike previous funding for the EECP, which went primarily to fund weatherization, the FY1977 supplemental funding was to be used by the states for direct payments to utilities and fuel suppliers. The program allowed for up to $250 payments to utilities on behalf of customers whose power had been shut off or threatened with shut off, and up to $50 directly to households that could prove "dire financial need" as the result of having paid large fuel bills.⁹⁹ Congress again appropriated funds to help households facing energy crises in FY1978 and FY1979 (see Table A-1).

In FY1980, Congress expanded energy assistance by appropriating significantly more funding than had been made available in the past, a total of $1.6 billion provided through two different agencies. The impetus behind the rather dramatic increase in funding was, as in the early 1970s, the increase in energy prices, particularly heating oil. In 1979, the decontrol of domestic oil prices, together with an increase in OPEC oil prices, led to increases in the price of heating oil and kerosene. An article in the Congressional Quarterly describing the environment surrounding the passage of energy assistance legislation noted the "spectacular rise in the price of home heating oil" as "the biggest factor in the problems that led Congress to take action."¹⁰⁰ In the summer and fall of 1979, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources alone held 12 hearings on energy assistance legislation.¹⁰¹

Enactment of LIEAP, the Predecessor Program to LIHEAP

Energy needs of low-income households continued to occupy the President and Congress after the appropriation of energy assistance funding for FY1980. One of the proposals to fund energy assistance for FY1980, S. 1724, the Home Energy Assistance Act (as reported by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources), proposed a new energy assistance program to be authorized from FY1981 through FY1984.¹⁰² The program was enacted in April 1980 as the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP) as part of the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act (P.L. 96-223).¹⁰³ LIEAP was to be funded by windfall profits taxes imposed as part of P.L. 96-223 and deposited in a Treasury account, but the law did not provide for the account to be established, so the program was funded by an appropriation.¹⁰⁴ LIEAP was authorized at $3 billion for FY1981; Congress appropriated $1.85 billion for the program in that year (P.L. 96-369).

Like LIHEAP, the program that was to follow, LIEAP was a block grant program to states. Funds were primarily distributed to the states by formula, with a small amount ($100 million) reserved for crisis assistance. States could use funds to help low-income households pay home energy costs. While the term "home energy" included cooling assistance, states could only provide cooling assistance in cases of medical need. Eligible households were considered those at or below the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard, an income level that exceeded the poverty level in most instances.¹⁰⁵ Recipients of certain means-tested benefits—Aid to Families with Dependent Children (now TANF), Food Stamps (now SNAP), SSI benefits, and certain veterans' benefits—were eligible for LIEAP benefits. Payments could be made to fuel suppliers or utilities, residents, or both, at the discretion of the state. States had some discretion in setting up their programs, with the ability to determine the state and local agencies that would administer the program, who would receive payments, the amount of benefits, certification for eligibility, how to provide benefits to renters, and establishment of funds to emergencies (up to 3% of total).

Most at issue in enactment of LIEAP was how funds would be distributed to the states, specifically whether states would receive the same share of funds, or if colder weather states would have preference. The formula that Congress established for LIEAP was complex and incorporated data that included temperatures, energy expenditures, and the number of low-income households. For more information about the LIEAP formula and how it pertains to LIHEAP, see CRS Report RL33275, The LIHEAP Formula, by [author name scrubbed].

Enactment of LIHEAP

In 1981, Congress enacted a new program, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which replaced LIEAP. LIHEAP was similar to its predecessor program in that it was set up as a block grant to states, tribes, and territories to help low-income households meet their energy needs. LIHEAP maintained the same formula distribution as was set up under LIEAP. Unlike LIEAP, grantees were able to use funds for cooling expenses without a showing of medical necessity, as well as for weatherization. Grantees were given the option of setting eligibility at the higher of 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income (rather than the BLS lower living standard), and the program maintained eligibility for recipients of AFDC (now TANF), Food Stamps (now SNAP), SSI benefits, and certain veterans' benefits. The program was authorized at $1.875 billion from FY1982 through FY1984 and was funded at that level in its first year of operation. For historic LIHEAP funding levels, see Table B-3.

LIHEAP differed from LIEAP in that states were given more flexibility and had fewer administrative requirements in implementation.¹⁰⁶ For example, under the new LIHEAP program, states were only required to report about households assisted annually, compared to quarterly under LIEAP, and HHS did not require uniform data collection or record keeping standards. Under LIEAP, states had to submit detailed changes in plans each time they wanted to modify benefit levels or the way in which funds were used.¹⁰⁷ In applying for LIHEAP funds, the statute only required grantees to make assurances about the services they would provide, and HHS did not have the authority to dictate how states would accomplish program goals or to approve or disapprove state plans.¹⁰⁸

Appendix B. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels

In this appendix are two tables that show how LIHEAP funds have been distributed to the states, tribes, and territories during recent fiscal years, and an additional table showing historical funding levels from the time the program was created to the present.

Table B-1 shows the amount of LIHEAP regular funds distributed to states, tribes, and territories pursuant to the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113) announced by HHS on October 23, 2015, and again on April 1, 2016. Net allocations to the states are in columns (a) and (c) (i.e., the columns do not include funding for tribes) and tribal allocations are in columns (b) and (d). Allocations for the territories are in the last rows of the table, after the states. Column (e) shows total FY2016 funding for all grantees. As of the date of this report, approximately 1% of LIHEAP appropriations had not been distributed.

Table B-2 shows the total amount of LIHEAP regular and emergency contingency funds distributed to each state from FY2007 through FY2015; the totals include funds distributed to tribes within the states.

Table B-3 provides historic funding levels for LIHEAP from the time the program was initially funded, in FY1982, through proposed funding in FY2017. The table shows authorization levels for LIHEAP regular funds, Administration budget requests for both regular and emergency contingency funds, the total amount of regular and emergency contingency funds appropriated in each fiscal year, and the total amount of emergency contingency funds distributed.

Author Contact Information

Acknowledgments

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

Footnotes

1.	See §2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), as amended. The section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)-(d).
2.	42 U.S.C. §8624.
3.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(1).
4.	"Home energy" is defined at 42 U.S.C. §8622 as "a source of heating or cooling in residential dwellings."
5.	42 U.S.C. §8623(c).
6.	42 U.S.C. §8622(3).
7.	For the state definitions of "crisis" see the compilation at the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2014/Crisis.pdf. The LIHEAP Clearinghouse, via a contract with HHS, collects information about how states operate their energy assistance programs.
8.	The limitation on use of weatherization funds is at 42 U.S.C. §8624(k).
9.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(16).
10.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(9).
11.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FY2017 Congressional Budget Justifications for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/final_cj_2017_print.pdf.
12.	Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2010 of $5.3 billion. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2010, p. 19, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/fy10_liheap_rtc_final.pdf (hereinafter, FY2010 LIHEAP Report to Congress).
13.	Three states provided crisis assistance in the form of expedited heating benefits. These were Kansas, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Ibid., Table I-8, pp. 20-22.
14.	FY2010 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 19 and p. ii of the Executive Summary.
15.	Ibid., p. 19.
16.	42 U.S.C. §8622(5).
17.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(13).
18.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(B). Each year HHS publishes updated poverty levels and state median income thresholds and the LIHEAP Clearinghouse publishes them on their website, http://liheap.ncat.org/delivery/income_elibility.htm.
19.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2)(A). Eligible veterans' benefits are compensation to parents for the service-connected death of a child, to veterans with non-service connected disabilities, to the surviving spouse of a veteran, and to children of a deceased veteran. In each case, benefits are need-based and are reduced based on the beneficiary's income.
20.	42 U.S.C. §8624(f).
21.	For income guidelines, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2014/POP14.htm. For a list of states that use receipt of other benefits to establish eligibility, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2013/autoeligtable.htm. For states that use asset tests, see http://liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2014/assets.htm.
22.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(3).
23.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(5).
24.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1994, report to accompany S. 2000, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., April 19, 1994, S.Rept. 103-251, p. 55.
25.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(8).
26.	See §927 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) as amended by P.L. 103-185, a bill to provide increased flexibility to States in carrying out the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
27.	See http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2012/subsidize.htm.
28.	42 U.S.C. §8624(c).
29.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(12).
30.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(4).
31.	Ibid. For more information about the Weatherization Assistance Program, see CRS Report R42147, DOE Weatherization Program: A Review of Funding, Performance, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies, by [author name scrubbed].
32.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(10).
33.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(6).0,
34.	See the LIHEAP Clearinghouse website, http://liheap.ncat.org/admin/admintro.htm.
35.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook for Fiscal Year 2011, June 2014, p. 29, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/fy2011_hen_final.pdf (hereinafter FY2011 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook). This estimate attempts to remove duplication among households that received both heating and winter crisis assistance.
36.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook for Fiscal Year 2009, September 2011, p. 30 (hereinafter, FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook).
37.	For more information about heat-and-eat, see CRS Report R42591, The 2014 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
38.	FY2010 LIHEAP Report to Congress, pp. 37-39.
39.	Note that due to a provision in the FY2009 appropriations act (P.L. 110-329) that allowed states to increase household eligibility to 75% of state median income in that year, only 16% of those eligible under the appropriations law were served in FY2009. FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
40.	FY2011 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 29.
41.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook for Fiscal Year 2010, January 2013, p. 31, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocs/fy2010_hen.pdf and the FY2011 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
42.	See the FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 31, and the FY2006 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
43.	FY2010 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 57.
44.	Ibid., p. 46.
45.	Ibid., pp. 41-43.
46.	FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
47.	Ibid.
48.	FY2011 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 32.
49.	FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
50.	FY2011 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 32.
51.	42 U.S.C. §8621.
52.	42 U.S.C. §8623(d).
53.	Based on tribes receiving LIHEAP funding in FY2015.
54.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Block Grant Programs: Final Rules," 47 Federal Register 29485, July 6, 1982.
55.	Ibid.
56.	42 U.S.C. §8621(e). Initially, the terms "natural disaster" and "emergency" were not defined in the statute, and, several years later, in 1998, as part of P.L. 105-285, Congress amended the statute to include definitions.
57.	42 U.S.C. §8622(1).
58.	42 U.S.C. §8622(7).
59.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services, LIHEAP Disaster Relief, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/liheap-disaster-relief, accessed November 15, 2012.
60.	During the FY1991 appropriations process, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee noted that "[e]xtraordinary circumstances in world oil markets pose a serious risk that low-income households will face skyrocketing home energy prices in the 1990-1991 heating season." U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance, Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation Administration, and Other Urgent Needs, and Transfers, and Reducing Funds Budgeted for Military Spending Act, report to accompany H.R. 4404, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., March 27, 1990, H.Rept. 101-434, pp. 17-18.
61.	Funds were to be made available if the average price of heating oil for a given month exceeded the four-year average for the same month by 20% or more. Funds were distributed to all states but Hawaii in January 1991 based on December 1990 heating oil prices. Pursuant to the law, states received funds based on the percentage of low-income households using heating oil, liquified petroleum gas, and kerosene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1991, October 1992, pp. 59-60.
62.	For more information, see CRS Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in Effect Between 1985 and 2002, by [author name scrubbed].
63.	See §251(b)(2)(D) of P.L. 101-508, later extended as part of P.L. 103-66.
64.	The language reads "Funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection are hereby designated to be emergency requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that such funds shall be made available only after the submission to Congress of a formal budget request by the President (for all or a part of the appropriation pursuant to this subsection) that includes a designation of the amount requested as an emergency requirement as defined in such Act." See 42 U.S.C. §8621(e).
65.	After expiration of the BEA, there were three years in which the appropriations language designated emergency contingency funds as "emergency" for purposes of the budget resolutions (these were FY2005, FY2008, and FY2009). Budget resolutions establish allocations for appropriators. For more information, see CRS Report R40472, The Budget Resolution and Spending Legislation, by [author name scrubbed].
66.	42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
67.	For example, §155 of the FY1983 Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 97-377) specified that the Department of Energy distribute $200 million to the states to be used for five energy efficiency programs, including LIHEAP. Funds were also made available via court orders and settlements. See, for example, Chuck Hill, Heather Gonzalez, and Roger Colton, "Oil Overcharge and Percentage-of-Income Payment Plan Developments," Clearinghouse Review, vol. 22, no. 2 (June 1988), pp. 146-148.
68.	FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress, pp. 2-3.
69.	42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
70.	42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).
71.	See S.Rept. 102-104, p. 180, to accompany H.R. 2707, an appropriations bill that was vetoed, though the same LIHEAP funding went into final bill.
72.	"[T]he funding cycle for LIHEAP under current law is a major obstacle to effective state planning and management of an efficient and timely winter heating or crisis program. LIHEAP funds are designed to be expended in the season when home energy costs are incurred and in time to avoid household energy emergencies. However, in recent years, the Department had most often been without a final appropriations figure by the October 1 program start date. States must begin their planning for the program well before the level of funding is established. As a result of funding uncertainties, benefits cannot be set, and especially when major cuts are proposed, eligibility levels cannot be determined." U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Human Services Reauthorization Act, report to accompany H.R. 4151, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., August 3, 1990, S.Rept. 101-421, p. 75.
73.	Instead the report stated that the "conferees fully intend" to provide FY2002 funding totaling $1.7 billion. Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2001, conference report to accompany H.R. 4577, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., December 15, 2000, H.Rept. 106-1033, pp. 153-154.
74.	See, for example, a discussion on the Senate floor about the Senate Committee on Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations failing to include advance funding for FY2002: "As you know, this is a very difficult year for appropriators. The budget caps are very tight, and this bill contains many valuable programs." Senator Spector, "The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2001," Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 146, part 9 (June 30, 2000), p. 13326.
75.	See P.L. 114-53, P.L. 114-96, and P.L. 114-100.
76.	For more information about funding pursuant to CRs, see CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by [author name scrubbed].
77.	See, for example, §109 of P.L. 114-53.
78.	See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Greater Fraud Prevention Controls Are Needed, GAO-10-621, June 2010, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10621.pdf.
79.	42 U.S.C. §405(c)(2)(C)(i).
80.	See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, LIHEAP Information Memorandum 10-06, States are Strongly Encouraged to Exercise their Discretion to Require Social Security Numbers in Determining Eligibility for LIHEAP, May 5, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/information_memoranda/im10-06.html.
81.	Lauren Christopher, "LIHEAP Program Integrity Activities at the State Level," presentation at the National Energy and Utility Affordability Conference, New Orleans, LA, June 11, 2012, http://www.energyandutilityconference.org/Assets/2012%20Conference/2012%20Presentations/2C_Lauren%20Christopher.pdf.
82.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Action Transmittal 2010-6: Plan Supplement Required for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011: LIHEAP Program Integrity Plan – Application for LIHEAP Funding, June 8, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/action_transmittals/at10-06_1.html.
83.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
84.	45 C.F.R. §96.84(c).
85.	42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
86.	The template is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/action_transmittals/at10-06_a.html.
87.	LIHEAP Clearinghouse, National Center for Appropriate Technology, LIHEAP Program Integrity Working Group Final Report, April 13, 2012, http://www.liheap.ncat.org/admin.htm#lhpi.
88.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Action Transmittal 2010-4, Implementing LIHEAP Outcome Performance Measures, March 17, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/resource/implementing-liheap-outcome-performance-measures.
89.	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, "Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request," 78 Federal Register 34105-34106, June 6, 2013.
90.	Carol A. Kunze, A Chronology of International Economic Events: Oil Prices, the System of International Exchange Rates, Conference Between Developing and Industrialized Countries, International Economic Summits and Related Events 1971-976, Archived Congressional Research Service Report, February 11, 1977.
91.	See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Federal Food Programs—1974, Part 6 Fuel Crisis Impact on Low Income and Elderly, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., January 22 and 23, 1974, p. 706.
92.	Ibid., pp. 741-742.
93.	The bill originally proposing the new program was S. 3051, the Emergency Energy Conservation Economic Opportunity Amendments. An identical program was included in the final version of P.L. 93-644. When S. 3051 was introduced, its sponsor, Senator Javits, described the Maine program, as well as efforts in Vermont, and said "Through this bill, the sponsors seek to prompt a duplication nationally of such efforts at the earliest moment." See Senator Jacob Javits, Introduction of S. 3051, Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 3 (February 25, 1974), p. 4030.
94.	U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Community Services Administration, "Character and Scope of Specific Community Action Programs: Emergency Energy Conservation Program," 40 Federal Register 31603, July 28, 1975.
95.	The conference report, H.Rept. 94-239, provided that $7.5 million more than was available in the House-passed version of the bill ($9 million) be appropriated. Funds were added to the House-passed version (H.R. 5899) on the floor; see "Second Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 1975," House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 8 (April 15, 1975), pp. 10263-10266.
96.	In FY1978, funds were appropriated as part of the Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-205). Funding levels were specified in the FY1978 Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare funding bill (H.R. 7555); see the conference report (H.Rept. 95-538).
97.	See the House and Senate committee reports to accompany H.R. 8650 (H.Rept. 94-377 and S.Rept. 94-623), one of the bills from which provisions for the Weatherization Assistance Program were drawn. See U.S. Congress, Energy Conservation and Production, conference report to accompany H.R. 12169, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., August 4, 1976, H.Rept. 94-1392, pp. 88-91.
98.	See, for example, statement of Senator Edmund Muskie, Senate debate of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1977, Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 8 (April 1, 1977), p. 10114. While many states imposed moratoriums on utility disconnections during the winter months, when spring arrived, large numbers of households faced shutoff. The Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations surveyed state utility commissions and utility to companies to determine the extent of disconnections. The results of the study were published in the Congressional Record, vol. 123, part 8 (April 1, 1977), pp. 10119-10122.
99.	Community Services Administration, "Special Crisis Intervention Program: Information, Application Procedures, and Post Grant Requirements for the Special Crisis Intervention Program," 42 Federal Register 33240, June 29, 1977.
100.	"Home Heating Assistance." In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 535-536. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980, http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1185945.
101.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Home Energy Assistance Act, 96th Cong., 1st sess., October 25, 1979, S.Rept. 96-378, p. 5.
102.	"Windfall Profits Tax." In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-632. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980. http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
103.	The program in S. 1724 was incorporated into H.R. 3919, the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act, replacing an energy assistance program that had been proposed by the Senate Finance Committee.
104.	[author name scrubbed], Energy Assistance for Low-Income Households: 1979 and 1980 Legislation, Congressional Research Service Issue Brief, June 15, 1981, p. 18.
105.	CRS Memo, Poverty and Lower Living Standard Estimates, April 30, 1980.
106.	The Senate committee report, in describing the new program, stated that "the Committee does not want to burden States with unnecessary paperwork" and that "the general effect will be to return basic control and responsibility to the State level." See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, report to accompany S. 1377, 97th Cong., 1st sess., June 17, 1981, S.Rept. 97-139, pp. 908-911. S. 1377 was substituted for the House version (H.R. 3982) prior to enactment of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act. The framework for LIHEAP came from S. 1377. See Ken Cahill, Low-Income Energy Assistance Reauthorization: Proposals and Issues, Congressional Research Service Issue Brief, October 28, 1981, p. 6.
107.	U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Aging, Family, and Human Services, Examination on the Ability of Existing Energy Assistance Programs to Provide Help for the Needs of Low-Income Individuals, Testimony of David Swoap, Under Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 97th Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 1981, pp. 16-27.
108.	Some of the differences between LIEAP and LIHEAP regulations are discussed in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1982, November 1, 1983, pp. 1-5.