LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Congressional research reportJun 22, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
name redacted
Specialist in Housing Policy
Updated June 22, 2018
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL31865
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), established in 1981 as part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), is a program through which the federal
government makes annual grants to states, tribes, and territories to operate home energy
assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of
funds: regular funds (sometimes referred to as formula or block grant funds), which are allocated
to all states using a statutory formula, and emergency contingency funds, which are allocated to
one or more states at the discretion of the Administration in cases of emergency as defined by the
LIHEAP statute.
States may use LIHEAP funds to help low-income households pay for heating and cooling costs,
for crisis assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as counseling) to reduce the
need for energy assistance. The LIHEAP statute establishes federal eligibility for households with
incomes at or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income, whichever is higher,
although states may set lower limits.
The largest share of LIHEAP funding goes to pay for heating assistance. In FY2014, the most
recent year for which data are available, approximately 49% of funds went to pay for heating
assistance, 7% was used for cooling aid, 21% went to crisis assistance, and 9% was used for
weatherization. Funds are also used for administration (9% in FY2014) and up to 10% of a state’s
allotment can be carried over for use in the next fiscal year (4% in FY2014). In FY2014,
approximately 6.3 million households received heating and/or winter crisis assistance, and
800,000 received cooling and/or summer crisis assistance.
For FY2018, the LIHEAP appropriation was $3.640 billion in regular funds, enacted as part of
the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141), an increase of $250 million over the
FY2017 funding level. Before enactment of P.L. 115-141, on March 23, 2018, LIHEAP had been
funded through a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) at the FY2017 appropriations level of
$3.390 billion in regular funds, less an across-the-board reduction of 0.6791% (P.L. 115-56). On
October 20, 2017, HHS announced the first distribution of FY2018 LIHEAP funds under the CR,
and on April 23, 2018, HHS announced the distribution of the remainder of funds appropriated
pursuant to P.L. 115-141. For FY2018 funds distributed to states, tribes, and territories, see Table
B-1.
For FY2019, as in FY2018, the President’s budget proposed to eliminate funding for LIHEAP
(see Table B-3). As of the date of this report, the House Appropriations Committee had released
its draft FY2019 funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education (LHHS), which proposed funding LIHEAP at its FY2018 level of $3.640 billion. The
Senate Appropriations Committee had not yet released an FY2019 LHHS funding bill.
Congressional Research Service
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Program Rules and Benefits ............................................................................................................ 1
How May LIHEAP Funds Be Used? ........................................................................................ 1
Who May Receive Assistance? ................................................................................................. 3
How Is LIHEAP Administered? ................................................................................................ 5
Households Served .................................................................................................................... 6
Benefit Levels ........................................................................................................................... 7
Types of LIHEAP Funds ............................................................................................................... 10
Regular Funds ......................................................................................................................... 10
Tribal Allotments .............................................................................................................. 10
Funds for the Territories .................................................................................................... 10
Emergency Contingency Funds ............................................................................................... 11
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds ............................................................................... 13
Other Federal Sources of Funds Available for Energy Assistance .......................................... 13
LIHEAP Appropriations ................................................................................................................ 14
The LIHEAP Program Year..................................................................................................... 14
Recent LIHEAP Funding ........................................................................................................ 15
FY2019 LIHEAP Funding ................................................................................................ 15
FY2018 LIHEAP Funding ................................................................................................ 15
LIHEAP and Continuing Resolutions ..................................................................................... 16
Other Issues ................................................................................................................................... 17
Program Integrity .................................................................................................................... 17
Performance Measures ............................................................................................................ 19
Tables
Table 1. Use of Federal LIHEAP Funds by States, FY2014 ........................................................... 2
Table 2. LIHEAP Households Receiving Heating and Winter Crisis Assistance ............................ 8
Table 3. LIHEAP Households Receiving Cooling and Summer Crisis Assistance ......................... 9
Table 4. FY2017 and FY2018 Enacted and FY2019 Proposed LIHEAP Funding ....................... 17
Table A-1. Energy Assistance Funding Prior to LIHEAP ............................................................. 24
Table B-1. FY2018 Regular Fund Allocations to States, Tribes, and Territories .......................... 27
Table B-2. LIHEAP Funding by State: FY2008 to FY2017.......................................................... 30
Table B-3. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2019........................................................................ 33
Appendixes
Appendix A. Legislative History of Energy Assistance ................................................................ 21
Appendix B. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels ............................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 35
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 35
Congressional Research Service
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.
1 See §2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), as amended. The
section is codified at 42 U.S.C. §8623(a)-(d).
2 42 U.S.C. §8624.
3 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(1).
4 “Home energy” is defined at 42 U.S.C. §8622 as “a source of heating or cooling in residential dwellings.”
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
1
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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
See Table 1 for more information about the ways in which states use their LIHEAP funds.
A Note About LIHEAP Data
HHS publishes data about how states use LIHEAP funds as well as the number and characteristics of recipient
households as part of annual LIHEAP Reports to Congress and LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks. The most
recent versions of both these reports are from FY2014. HHS has made preliminary data for FY2015 and FY2016
available on its Performance Management website at https://liheappm.acf.hhs.gov/, but CRS has not included the
data in this report because it has not yet been validated. As a result, the LIHEAP data in this report are dated.
Table 1. Use of Federal LIHEAP Funds by States, FY2014
Percentage of
Funds
Dollars
Obligated
($ in millions)
Number of
States
Households
Assisteda
(in thousands)
Heatingb
49%
$1,727
51
5,740
Cooling
7
226
19
673
21c
727c d
51e
1,577
12
163
Use of Funds
Winter/Year Round Crisis
Assistance
Summer Crisis
Weatherization
9
307
42
83
Administration
9
307
51
—
5 42 U.S.C. §8623(c).
6 42 U.S.C. §8622(3).
7 For the state definitions of “crisis” see the compilation at the LIHEAP Clearinghouse, https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files//webfiles/docs/LIHEAP_Crisis_2018.pdf. The LIHEAP Clearinghouse, via a contract with HHS,
collects information about how states operate their energy assistance programs.
8 The limitation on use of weatherization funds is at 42 U.S.C. §8624(k).
9 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(16).
10 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(9).
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
2
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Percentage of
Funds
Dollars
Obligated
($ in millions)
Number of
States
Households
Assisteda
(in thousands)
Services to Reduce Reliance
on Home Energy
1
41
24
—
Carry Over to Next Fiscal
Year
4
145
41
—
Use of Funds
Source: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2014, p. 18 (percentage of
funds, dollars obligated, and number of states) and p. 35 (number of households assisted and number of states
for winter and summer crisis).
Notes: “States” includes the District of Columbia.
a. Note that the numbers of households assisted by category are not unduplicated. For example, HHS
estimates that two-thirds of households that receive winter/year round crisis assistance also receive heating
assistance.
b. In FY2014, HHS asked grantees to separate nominal LIHEAP payments from their heating assistance total.
Nominal payments are used to leverage additional SNAP benefits (see text box). In FY2014, nominal
payments from 14 states totaled $18 million. See Table III-2, note 7 of the FY2014 LIHEAP Report to
Congress, pp. 36-37.
c. HHS provides the combined percentage and obligations for crisis assistance.
d. Total does not include the obligations of three states that use expedited heating assistance to provide
assistance in crisis situations. These are Alaska, Kansas, and Massachusetts. Two other states that use
expedited heating assistance (Maryland and New Hampshire) categorize the assistance as crisis. See Table
I-8 of the FY2014 LIHEAP Report to Congress, pp. 19-21.
e. Total includes five states that use expedited heating assistance to assist households in fuel crisis situations.
These are Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. See Table III-2 in the FY2014
LIHEAP Report to Congress, pp. 36-37.
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.”11 Grantees must have a system in place for a household denied assistance to appeal.12
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.13 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),
11 42 U.S.C. §8622(5).
12 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(13).
13 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, https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/delivery/
income_eligibility.htm.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
3
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), or certain needs-tested
veterans’ programs.14
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.15 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.16
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.17
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.18 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.”19
Owners and Renters: Under the LIHEAP statute, grantees must treat owners and renters
“equitably.”20 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.21 However, states may take utility allowances into
14 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.
15 42 U.S.C. §8624(f).
16 The LIHEAP Clearinghouse website is at https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/.
17 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(3).
18 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(5).
19 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.
20 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(8).
21 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.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
4
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
account when determining the amount of benefits subsidized renters may receive. On its website,
the LIHEAP Clearinghouse compiles state policies regarding renters.22
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,23 and they are to provide a method for public participation in the state plan’s
development.24
The state agency administering LIHEAP is to coordinate with other low-income programs,
including the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP).25 To the extent
possible, grantees are encouraged to follow WAP rules in order to increase consistency between
the two weatherization components.26 LIHEAP grantees are also required to establish fiscal
control and accounting procedures, which include a way of monitoring the assistance that is
provided.27
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
Community Action Agencies
low-income energy assistance or
Community Action Agencies (CAAs) have been a
weatherization prior to LIHEAP’s
prominent part of administering energy assistance
programs since the 1970s. CAAs are community-based
enactment.28 According to the LIHEAP
Clearinghouse, in 30 states CAAs are involved organizations created as part of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-452), the law that
in administering funds, another 13 states have
established the War on Poverty. CAAs were
local programs administered by the counties,
authorized to administer a number of programs that
assist low-income households. In addition to
and the remaining states are either
administering energy and weatherization assistance
administered at the state level or by nonprofit
programs, CAAs run programs to assist families with
29
groups. In most cases, LIHEAP benefits are
housing, child development (including Head Start), food
given directly to utilities or fuel oil suppliers
and nutrition, senior services, legal affairs, community
to be applied to recipients’ accounts rather
development, and education, among others. More than
than directly to recipients. An exception to this 1,000 CAAs administer programs nationwide, and in
many states continue to administer LIHEAP funds.
may occur in cases of renters whose utility
payments are included in rent and who do not
have their own account.
22
See https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/tables/FY2016/subsidize.htm.
23 42 U.S.C. §8624(c).
24 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(12).
25 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(4).
26 Ibid.
27 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(10).
28 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(6).0.
29 See the LIHEAP Clearinghouse website, https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/admin/admintro.htm.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
5
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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 FY2014, an estimated 6.3 million households received heating and/or winter crisis assistance
(the bulk of LIHEAP assistance that is provided).30 For the number of households receiving
LIHEAP heating and winter crisis assistance from FY2000 through FY2014, see Table 2. While
the number of recipient households is down from a peak of 8.1 million in FY2010, the number of
households served continues to be higher than in years preceding FY2009, a year when
appropriations reached the highest level ever for the program. Appropriations reached $5.1 billion
for LIHEAP in both FY2009 and FY2010, and $4.7 billion in FY2011, compared to $2.59 billion
in FY2008. In the years leading up to FY2009, recipient households ranged between 5.0 and 5.5
million.
The same trend can be seen in the percentage
of federally eligible households that receive
heating and/or winter crisis assistance. In the
mid-2000s, prior to increased funding in
FY2009, 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.33
Since the peak of LIHEAP funding, the
percentage of eligible households served
settled again at 16% in FY2013 and
FY2014.34
Households Receiving Nominal
LIHEAP Benefits
Since roughly 2009, some states have distributed
nominal LIHEAP benefits to households (ranging from
$1 to $5) in order to leverage additional SNAP
benefits. This practice is sometimes referred to as
“heat-and-eat.”31 In 2014, the Farm Bill raised the
amount of the LIHEAP benefit required to leverage
additional funds to “greater than $20 annually.” In its
FY2014 LIHEAP Report to Congress, HHS identified 14
states that provided more than $18 million in nominal
LIHEAP benefits to 4.8 million households.32 These
were California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Washington. Data on nominal households assisted
are excluded from overall LIHEAP data.
FY2010 through FY2012 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 and
30 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2014, June 2016, p. 46, (hereinafter, FY2014 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook). This
estimate attempts to remove duplication among households that received both heating and winter crisis assistance.
31 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 (name redacted) and (name redacted)
.
32 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 2014, p. 34 (hereinafter, FY2014 LIHEAP Report to
Congress).
33 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.
34 FY2014 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
6
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
800,000 in FY2014.35 Prior to FY2009, the number of households receiving cooling and/or
summer crisis assistance reached a high point of 700,000 recipients in FY2006.36 See Table 3.
In terms of vulnerable populations, HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP
heating assistance in FY2014 (the most recent data publicly available), about 33% had at least
one member 60 years of age or older; about 38% had at least one member with a disability; and
19% included at least one child five years of age or younger.37 Households may include members
in more than one of the three categories, and an estimated 74% of recipient-households were in at
least 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
FY2014, 68% of households receiving heating assistance had incomes at or below 100% of
poverty and 76% of households receiving cooling assistance were at or below the poverty level.38
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 FY2014, the most recent year in
which data are available, the average heating benefit nationwide was $301, with a range from $78
(Oklahoma) to $1,024 (North Dakota).39 The average benefit for cooling assistance, available in
19 states in FY2014, was $336, ranging from $121 (Arkansas) to $1,246 (District of Columbia).
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 $213.40 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 $209.41 Since then, the
35 FY2009-FY2014 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks.
36 See the FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 31, and the FY2006 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
37 FY2014 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 56.
38 Ibid., pp. 46-48.
39 Ibid., pp. 40-42.
40 FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
41 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
7
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
constant dollar value of the LIHEAP heating and/or winter crisis benefit has again declined, and
by FY2014 was back down to $145.42 (See Table 2.)
Table 2. LIHEAP Households Receiving Heating and Winter Crisis Assistance
(FY2000-FY2014)
Households Assisted
Average Benefits
Percentage
of Federally
Eligible
Households
Receiving
Assistance
Nominal
Dollars
Constant
1981
Dollarsb
Fiscal
Year
Total LIHEAP
Funding
Distributeda
($ in millions)
Households
Receiving
Assistance
(millions)
Households
Federally
Eligible for
Assistance
(millions)
1981
$1,850
7.1
19.7c
36%c
$213
$213
2000
1,844
3.9
29.4
13
270
140
2001
1,856
4.8
30.4
16
364
187
2002
1,800
4.4
32.7
13
291
141
2003
1,988
4.8
34.5
14
312
154
2004
1,889
5.0
35.4
14
277
132
2005
2,162
5.3
34.8
15
304
140
2006
3,160
5.5
34.4
16
385
171
2007
2,161
5.3
33.6
16
320
139
151
2008
2009
2,591
5,100
5.4
33.5
16
362d
7.4
35.0e
21
502f
209
22
467
191
2010
5,100
8.1
37.1e
2011
4,701
7.6
40.1
19
462
184
2012
3,472
6.6
39.7
17
383
149
2013
3,255
6.4
39.0
16
362
139
2014
3,390
6.3
38.5
16
386
145
Source: Data regarding households assisted, federally eligible households, and benefit levels for FY2000 to
FY2014 are drawn from the LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks for FY1998 through FY2014.
a. For FY1981, see the Low Income Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for FY1981. For FY2000
on, see Table B-3.
b. Constant 1981 dollars are used by HHS to measure the value of LIHEAP benefits over time. LIHEAP was
enacted in 1981 and the first appropriation occurred in FY1982. In FY1981, energy assistance was funded
through a very similar predecessor program to LIHEAP, the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. For
more information, see Appendix A.
c. In FY1981, eligibility for energy assistance was based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard
rather than poverty or state median income.
d. Note that the FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress reports this average as $363.
e. In FY2009 and FY2010, the appropriations laws (P.L. 110-329) and (P.L. 111-117) gave states the option of
increasing LIHEAP household eligibility to 75% of state median income. This meant that approximately 45
million households were eligible for LIHEAP in FY2009 and nearly 48 million in FY2010. However, for the
sake of comparison, this table includes only those households federally eligible under the LIHEAP statute
(those with incomes at or below the greater of 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income).
42 FY2014 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 48.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
8
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
f.
Note that the FY2009 LIHEAP Report to Congress reports this average as $505.
The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is available to a more
limited number of households in 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. Between
FY2004 and FY2008, the constant dollar value 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 $142.43 In FY2014, the average constant
dollar benefit was $118.44 See Table 3.
Table 3. LIHEAP Households Receiving Cooling and Summer Crisis Assistance
(FY2000-FY2014)
Average Benefits
Fiscal Year
Number of
States Providing
Cooling
Assistancea
Households
Assisted
Nominal Dollars
Constant 1981
Dollars
1981
19
400,000
$129
$129
2000
17
400,000
206
107
2001
16
300,000
211
107
2002
19
700,000
145
70
2003
15
—b
163
80
2004
13
400,000
192
91
2005
13
400,000
197
91
2006
16
700,000
236
105
2007
15
600,000
171
74
2008
15
600,000
172
72
2009
17
900,000
342
142
2010
17
1,100,000
296
121
2011
16
1,100,000
316
126
2012
18
1,100,000
263
102
2013
19
1,000,000
274
105
2014
19
800,000
315
118
Source: Number of states providing cooling assistance comes from LIHEAP Reports to Congress and data on
households assisted, and average benefits is from LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks.
a. Not all states that provide cooling assistance provide summer crisis assistance, though most do. See, for
example, the FY2014 LIHEAP Report to Congress, Table III-2, pp. 36-37.
b. Data not available for FY2003.
43 FY2009 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 33.
44 FY2014 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 48.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
9
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Types of LIHEAP Funds
The LIHEAP statute authorizes several separate distributions of LIHEAP funds.45 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 nonfederal 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 (LIEAP, 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 (name redacted)
. 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.46 Tribal allotments may be based on the number of lowincome 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. See Table B-1 for
states in which tribes receive set-aside funding.
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
45 42 U.S.C. §8621.
46 42 U.S.C. §8623(d).
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
10
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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, $2.5
million was made available to the territories. Prior to implementation of LIHEAP, in 1981, the
territories asked HHS that more funding be provided.47 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 1981.48
HHS allocates funds among the 5 territories based on population, with Puerto Rico receiving
approximately 90% of funds. For recent allocations to the territories, see the last rows of Table B1 and Table B-2.
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.”49 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.”50
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.51
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
47 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Block Grant Programs: Final Rules,” 47 Federal Register 29485,
July 6, 1982.
48 Ibid.
49 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.
50 42 U.S.C. §8622(1).
51 42 U.S.C. §8622(7).
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
11
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
transportation to shelter, coats and blankets, as well as for utility reconnection and equipment
replacement.52
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 energyrelated emergencies grew out of high heating oil prices coupled with cold temperatures.53
Congress voted to appropriate $200 million in FY1991 and referred to the program as an “Energy
Emergency Contingency Fund” (see P.L. 101-517).54 Emergency contingency funding was
permanently authorized at $600 million in FY1994, and it has remained authorized at that same
level.
From the time emergency contingency funds were authorized through FY2011, funds have been
appropriated in every year with the exception of FY2003 (when funds appropriated in a previous
year were available for distribution). Since FY2011, funds have not been appropriated for
emergency contingency funds. In addition, just because funds are appropriated does not mean that
the Administration releases them to grantees. In a number of years that funds were appropriated,
HHS released only a portion of the funds available (see Table B-3).
Emergency Designation
On occasion, LIHEAP emergency contingency funds have been designated as “emergency” for
purposes of budget enforcement. For a period starting in FY1995, 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 (BBEDCA; P.L. 99-177), as
amended by the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 (enacted as part of P.L. 101-508).55 (The
BEA established statutory limits on discretionary spending. However, funds that were designated
as an emergency by both the President and in statute were effectively exempt from the spending
limits.56) Congress first designated emergency contingency funds as “emergency” for budget
enforcement purposes in the FY1992 through FY1994 appropriations acts, and then incorporated
the language into the LIHEAP statute upon the inclusion of the emergency contingency fund in
the law.57 The BEA expired in 2002.
52 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.
53 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.
54 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.
55 For more information, see CRS Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in Effect Between 1985 and 2002, by
(name redacted) .
56 See §251(b)(2)(D) of P.L. 101-508, later extended as part of P.L. 103-66.
57 The language as enacted in P.L. 103-252 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
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
12
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
While the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) further amended the law with new
procedures to reduce the deficit, the statutory reference to LIHEAP emergency contingency funds
as receiving an automatic emergency designation pursuant to the BBEDCA is no longer
operative.58 The BCA allows for the possibility of an emergency designation as determined by
Congress and the President each fiscal year, but the designation has not been used to fund
LIHEAP.
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. 101501 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 nonfederal resources for their LIHEAP programs.59 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 nonfederal 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, the set-aside for these
initiatives has generally been around $22 million to $30 million with dollars taken from annual
regular fund appropriations. However, since FY2013, funds have not been 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.60 Oil overcharge funds that were
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).
58 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 of spending under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committees. For more
information, see CRS Report R40472, The Budget Resolution and Spending Legislation, by (name redacted) .
59 42 U.S.C. §8621(d).
60 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 5 energy efficiency programs, including
LIHEAP. Funds were also made available via court orders and settlements. See, for example, Chuck Hill, Heather
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
13
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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.61
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.62 The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program also gives states the discretion to use funds for home
heating and cooling costs.63
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 set aside a portion of the funding to be used
as “delayed obligations” for the program, as described in appropriations documents, making them
available on the last day of the fiscal year. The funds were for purposes of “starting up activities”
for the following winter’s program.64 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, the LIHEAP statute was amended 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.65 The Augustus F. Hawkins Human Services
Reauthorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501) 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.
Gonzalez, and Roger Colton, “Oil Overcharge and Percentage-of-Income Payment Plan Developments,” Clearinghouse
Review, vol. 22, no. 2 (June 1988), pp. 146-148.
61 FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress, pp. 2-3.
62 42 U.S.C. §1397a(d).
63 42 U.S.C. §604(a)(1).
64 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.
65 “[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.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
14
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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 for LIHEAP were made for the fiscal year subsequent to the year in which funds
were appropriated. From FY1994 through FY2001, there were advance appropriations for
LIHEAP in every year but one (FY1997). When the FY2001 appropriations law was enacted, it
did not provide advance appropriations for FY2002, and advance appropriations for LIHEAP
have not been provided since then.
Recent LIHEAP Funding
FY2019 LIHEAP Funding
For FY2019, as in FY2018, the President’s budget proposed no funding for LIHEAP. HHS
budget justifications contained language similar to FY2018, saying that:
The FY 2019 request does not include funding for LIHEAP, which is a decrease of $3.4
billion from the FY 2018 Continuing Resolution level. This continues the proposal from
the FY 2018 President’s Budget. In a constrained budget environment, difficult funding
decisions were made to ensure that federal funds are being spent as effectively as possible.
Some utility companies and state and local governments also provide heating and cooling
assistance. Many states limit regulated utilities from discontinuing heat or cooling during
specific timeframes such as certain winter/summer months and/or a certain number of
consecutive days where the temperature drops below or increases above a certain level. 66
The House Appropriations Committee released a draft bill to fund the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) in FY2019 on June 14, 2018. The bill would
provide the same level of funding for LIHEAP as in FY2018—$3.640 billion in regular funds.
Also as in the previous year, the bill would distribute $678.5 million according to the statutory, or
“new,” LIHEAP formula, with the remainder, $2.962 billion, distributed using “old” formula
percentages. (For more information about the LIHEAP formula, see CRS Report RL33275, The
LIHEAP Formula, by (name redacted)
.) As of the date of this report, the Senate Appropriations
Committee had not yet released an LHHS bill.
FY2018 LIHEAP Funding
In FY2018, the appropriation for LIHEAP was $3.640 billion, provided as part of the FY2018
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141), enacted on March 23, 2018. The appropriation
exceeded the FY2017 level of $3.390 billion by $250 million. As in FY2017, all funds were
appropriated as regular funds, and the law provided that the majority of funds—$2.962 billion—
be distributed according to the “old” LIHEAP formula.
Before enactment of P.L. 115-141, LIHEAP funding for FY2018 was provided through a series of
continuing resolutions (CRs) that funded most federal programs at their FY2017 appropriations
levels, less an across-the-board reduction of 0.6791%.67 On October 20, 2017, HHS announced
that it was distributing just over $3 billion in FY2018 funds pursuant to the first CR. After
66 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2019 Budget Justifications for the Administration for Children
and Families, p. 21, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/acf_master_cj_acf_final_3_19_0.pdf.
67 The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act,
2017 (P.L. 115-56), enacted on September 8, 2017, funded federal programs, including LIHEAP, until December 8,
2017. A second CR (P.L. 115-90) extended funding through December 22, 2017, a third CR (P.L. 115-96) extended
funding through January 19, 2018, a fourth CR (P.L. 115-120) provided funding through February 8, 2018, and a fifth
CR (P.L. 115-123) provided funding until enactment of the final appropriations bill on March 23, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
15
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
enactment of P.L. 115-141, HHS announced the distribution of the remainder of appropriated
funds on April 23, 2018. For funds distributed to states, tribes, and territories, see Table B-1.
Prior to enactment of the CRs, the President’s budget request proposed to eliminate funding for
LIHEAP in FY2018. HHS budget justifications provided this explanation for no new funding for
the year:
The FY 2018 request does not include funding for LIHEAP. In a constrained budget
environment, difficult funding decisions were made to ensure that federal funds are being
spent as effectively as possible. Utility companies and state and local governments provide
significant heating and cooling assistance. The majority of states prohibit utilities from
discontinuing heat during the winter. 68
FY2018 was the first time since LIHEAP’s enactment that an administration proposed to
eliminate funding for the program. See Table B-3.
Neither the House nor the Senate appropriations committees followed the President’s proposal for
FY2018 LIHEAP funding. The House Appropriations Committee approved its LHHS
Appropriations bill (H.R. 3358) on July 24, 2017. The bill proposed level funding for LIHEAP—
$3.390 billion in regular funds, with $491 million allocated according to the “new” LIHEAP
formula and the remainder according to the “old” LIHEAP formula.69
On September 7, 2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its LHHS bill (S. 1771).
The bill would also have provided $3.390 billion in LIHEAP regular funds and the same “new”
and “old” formula amounts.
Both the House Appropriations Committee-reported bill and Senate Appropriations Committeereported bill would have set aside $3 million for training and technical assistance, but neither
specified an amount for leveraging incentive and REACH grants. Nor did H.R. 3358 or S. 1771
propose to appropriate emergency contingency funds (the last year emergency contingency funds
were appropriated was FY2011).
LIHEAP and Continuing Resolutions
OMB determines the amount of LIHEAP funding that is released to the states pursuant to a CR.70
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 2018 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.71
68 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2018 Budget Justifications for the Administration for Children
and Families, p. 24, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/acf_master_cj_508_compmay_21_2017.pdf.
69 On August 16, 2017, H.R. 3358 was one of multiple bills incorporated into H.R. 3354, the FY2018 Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, posted on the Rules Committee website. 69 H.R.
3354 was to be used as the legislative vehicle for a consolidated appropriations bill, the Make America Secure and
Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018. However, the first CR was enacted before Congress completed action on H.R.
3354. LIHEAP provisions in H.R. 3354 were the same as those in H.R. 3358.
70 For more information about how funding is provided pursuant to CRs, see CRS Report RL34700, Interim Continuing
Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by (name redacted) .
71 See, for example, P.L. 115-56, Division D, Section 109.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
16
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
The provision is meant to ensure that funds for a program that are released under a CR do not
exceed the amount that is ultimately appropriated for it or effectively constrain 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).
Table 4. FY2017 and FY2018 Enacted and FY2019 Proposed LIHEAP Funding
(dollars in millions)
Type of Funding
FY2017
Funding
P.L. 115-31
FY2018
Funding
P.L. 115-141
FY2019
President’s
Budget
Proposal
FY2019 House
Appropriations
Committee
Draft Bill
LIHEAP Regular Funds
3,390
3,640
0
3,640
Training and
Technical Assistance
3
3
—
3
Leveraging Incentive/
REACH Grants
—a
—a
—
—
Emergency Contingency
Funds
0
0
0
0
3,390
3,640
0
3,640
Total Funding
Available
Sources: The FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31), the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (P.L. 115-141), the FY2019 Department of Health and Human Services Congressional Budget Justifications,
and the House Appropriations Committee draft LHHS bill, available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP07/
20180615/108431/BILLS-115-SC-AP-FY2019-LaborHHS-LaborBill.pdf.
a. The appropriations acts did not specify a level of funding for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants, and
no leveraging incentive and REACH grants were distributed in FY2017 and FY2018.
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-
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
17
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
reporting of income or over-reporting of household members.72 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,73 which HHS has
interpreted to include LIHEAP.74 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 FY2010.75
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.76 The LIHEAP statute directs the
HHS Secretary to establish regulations to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.77 The
regulations in turn require grantees to establish systems and procedures to
prevent these activities among clients, vendors, and administering agencies.78
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.”79 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
72 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.
73 42 U.S.C. §405(c)(2)(C)(i).
74 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.
75 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.
76 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.
77 42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
78 45 C.F.R. §96.84(c).
79 42 U.S.C. §8624(b).
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
18
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
compliance monitoring, fraud reporting mechanisms, verifying applicant
identities, cross-checking SSNs, and verifying applicant income, among others.80
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 2012.81 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,
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.82 The performance measures are
also intended to respond to some of the issues raised in the GAO report described in the previous
section. States were first required to collect and report performance data for FY2016, though the
data have not been made public.83
The type of performance data to be collected was published by HHS in a proposed information
collection (and request for comment) on June 6, 2013, in the Federal Register and was amended
slightly in a notice published a year later.84 There are three primary performance measures
proposed. Each performance measure requires collection of several types of data.
The Average Reduction in Energy Burden for Households Receiving Fuel
Assistance: Within this measure, data collected and reported includes 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. Requirements in the initial
2013 Federal Register notice to collect consumption data were made optional in
the 2014 Federal Register notice.
The Percent of Unduplicated Households Where LIHEAP Prevented a
Potential Home Energy Crisis: Among the data collected for this performance
measure are the number of households receiving utility past due or disconnect
notices, the number receiving a notice from a bulk fuel vendor of an unpaid
80 The template is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/action_transmittals/at10-
06_a.html.
81 LIHEAP Clearinghouse, National Center for Appropriate Technology, LIHEAP Program Integrity Working Group
Final Report, April 13, 2012, https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/admindocs/integrity-report.htm.
82 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Action Transmittal 20104, Implementing LIHEAP Outcome Performance Measures, March 17, 2010, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/
resource/implementing-liheap-outcome-performance-measures.
83 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Instructions for the
LIHEAP Performance Data Form for FY 2016, December 19, 2016, p. 10, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
ocs/liheap_performance_data_form_instructions_for_fy2016_19dec2016_0.pdf.
84 See 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 and “Submission for
OMB Review; Comment Request,” 79 Federal Register 32550-32552, June 5, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
19
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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 involves identifying households where LIHEAP
receipt resulted in utility reconnection, purchase of bulk fuel, or repair or
replacement of heating or cooling equipment.
While LIHEAP state grantees are the entities required to collect and report the data to HHS,
information on fuel and electricity consumption requires input from fuel vendors and utility
companies.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
20
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Appendix A. Legislative History of
Energy Assistance
LIHEAP was not the first federal energy assistance program created to help low-income
households with their energy bills. 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 1974.85 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.86 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.87
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 1975.88 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
85 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.
86 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.
87 Ibid., pp. 741-742.
88 The bill originally proposing the new program was S. 3051, the Emergency Energy Conservation Economic
Opportunity Amendments. An identical program was included in the final version of P.L. 93-644. When S. 3051 was
introduced, its sponsor, Senator Javits, described the Maine program, as well as efforts in Vermont, and said “Through
this bill, the sponsors seek to prompt a duplication nationally of such efforts at the earliest moment.” See Senator Jacob
Javits, Introduction of S. 3051, Congressional Record, vol. 120, part 3 (February 25, 1974), p. 4030.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
21
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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.89 Congress first appropriated funds for the EECP in FY1975, $16.5
million, as part of a supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 94-32).90 Funds for the Emergency
Energy Conservation Program (to be used primarily for weatherization purposes) continued to be
appropriated through FY1978.91
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.92 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), $200 million was appropriated 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.93 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.94 Congress again appropriated funds to help households facing energy crises in FY1978 and
FY1979 (see Table A-1).
89 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.
90 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.
91 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).
92 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.
93 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.
94 Community Services Administration, “Special Crisis Intervention Program: Information, Application Procedures,
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
22
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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 2 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.”95 In the
summer and fall of 1979, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources alone held 12
hearings on energy assistance legislation.96
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 FY1984.97 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).98 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.99 LIEAP was authorized at $3 billion for
FY1981; $1.85 billion was appropriated 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.100 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).
and Post Grant Requirements for the Special Crisis Intervention Program,” 42 Federal Register 33240, June 29, 1977.
95 “Home Heating Assistance.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 535-536. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly,
1980, http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1185945.
96 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.
97 “Windfall Profits Tax.” In CQ Almanac 1979, 35th ed., 609-632. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1980.
http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal79-1184031.
98 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.
99 (name redacted),Energy Assistance for Low-Income Households: 1979 and 1980 Legislation, Congressional
Research Service Issue Brief, June 15, 1981, p. 18.
100 CRS Memo, Poverty and Lower Living Standard Estimates, April 30, 1980.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
23
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
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 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 (name redacted)
.
Table A-1. Energy Assistance Funding Prior to LIHEAP
(dollars in millions)
Community Services
Administrationa
Fiscal
Year
Emergency
Energy
Conservatio
n Program
Special
Crisis
Intervention
/
Emergency
Energy
Assistance
Programb
Energy Crisis
Assistance/
Intervention
Program
Department of
Energy
Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Weatherization
Assistance
Programc
Low
Income
Supplement
al Energy
Allowances
Low
Income
Energy
Assistance
Program
1975
16.5d
—
—
—
—
1976
27.5e
—
—
—
—
1977
110.0ff
200.0g
—
27.5
—
—
1978
65.0h
200.0i
—
65.0
—
—
1979
—
200.0j
—
199.0
—
—
1980
—
—
400.0k
199.0
1,200.0l
—
1981
—
—
—m
175.0
—
1,850.0m
Source: The table notes provide additional information about the funding for each program.
a. CSA funds were appropriated under the authority of Section 222(a)(5) and (12) of the Community Services
Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-644). (In 1975, the relevant section was moved from (a)(12) to (a)(5).)
b. In FY1977, Congress called the program the Special Crisis Intervention Program, but in FY1978 and FY1979
referred to it as the Emergency Energy Assistance Program.
c. Appropriations figures for the Weatherization Assistance Program were taken from CRS Report 83-96,
Federal Weatherization for Low-Income Households, by Evelyn Tager, May 12, 1983 (available to congressional
clients upon request to CRS).
d. Funds were appropriated in FY1975 as part of the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-32).
The conference report (H.Rept. 94-239) provided that $7.5 million more than was available in the Housepassed 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.
e. Funds were appropriated in FY1976 as part of the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and
Welfare Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-206). The conference report (H.Rept. 94-689) specified that the level
for EECP be $11 million more than the $16.5 million that was provided for in the House-passed version of
the appropriations bill (H.R. 8069).
f.
$27.5 million was appropriated for EECP as part of the FY1977 Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare Appropriations Act (P.L. 94-439). The CSA breakdown in funding is found in
“Conference Report on H.R. 14232, Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Related
Agencies Appropriations, 1977,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 122, part 21 (August 10, 1976), p.
26772. Later in the year, another $82.5 million was appropriated as part of the FY1977 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-26).
g. P.L. 95-26 provided $200 million for the Special Crisis Intervention Program.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
24
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Funds were appropriated in FY1978 for the EECP as part of the FY1978 Continuing Appropriations Act
(P.L. 95-205).
Funds were appropriated as part of the FY1978 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-240). While the
funds were to be used in a similar manner to the FY1977 appropriation to the Special Crisis Intervention
Program (to assist households facing emergency circumstances), distribution to the states was contingent on
a showing of an energy-related emergency. In addition, the program was referred to as the Emergency
Energy Assistance Program.
Funds were appropriated as part of the FY1979 Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 95-482).
The Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP) represented an “expanded version” of the Special Crisis
Intervention Program (see (name redacted),Low-Income Energy Cost Assistance: FY1980, CRS Report,
December 20, 1979). Of the amount appropriated, $250 million was part of the FY1980 Continuing
Resolution (P.L. 96-123), which referred to the amount in the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
and Welfare appropriations bill (H.R. 4389, H.Rept. 96-400) and the remaining $150 million was
appropriated as part of P.L. 96-126, the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act.
Of the $1.2 billion appropriated to HEW for the Low Income Supplemental Energy Allowances, $400
million was set aside specifically for households receiving Supplemental Security Income. Funds were
appropriated as part of P.L. 96-126.
Of the amount appropriated for LIEAP, it was specified that $87.5 million be allocated to the CSA Crisis
Intervention Program. See the conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 610 (H.Rept. 96-1443).
Enactment of LIHEAP
In 1981, Congress enacted a new program, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP), which replaced LIEAP. LIHEAP was similar to its predecessor program in that it was
set up as a block grant to states, tribes, and territories to help low-income households meet their
energy needs. LIHEAP maintained the same formula distribution as was set up under LIEAP.
Unlike LIEAP, grantees were able to use funds for cooling expenses without a showing of
medical necessity, as well as for weatherization. Grantees were given the option of setting
eligibility at the higher of 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income (rather than the BLS
lower living standard), and the program maintained eligibility for recipients of AFDC (now
TANF), Food Stamps (now SNAP), SSI benefits, and certain veterans’ benefits. The program was
authorized at $1.875 billion from FY1982 through FY1984 and was funded at that level in its first
year of operation. For historic LIHEAP funding levels, see Table B-3.
LIHEAP differed from LIEAP in that states were given more flexibility and had fewer
administrative requirements in implementation.101 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.102 In applying for LIHEAP funds, the statute
only required grantees to make assurances about the services they would provide, and HHS did
101 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 CRS Mini Brief MB81227, Low-Income Energy Assistance Reauthorization: Proposals and Issues,
by Ken Cahill, October 28, 1981, p. 6.
102 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 LowIncome Individuals, Testimony of David Swoap, Under Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 97th
Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 1981, pp. 16-27.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
25
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
not have the authority to dictate how states would accomplish program goals or to approve or
disapprove state plans.103
103 Some of the differences between LIEAP and LIHEAP regulations are discussed in U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1982, November
1, 1983, pp. 1-5.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
26
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Appendix B. Tables Showing LIHEAP
Funding Levels
In this appendix are two tables that show how LIHEAP funds have been distributed to the states,
tribes, and territories during recent fiscal years, and an additional table showing historical funding
levels from the time the program was created to the present.
Table B-1 shows the amount of LIHEAP regular funds distributed to states, tribes, and territories
pursuant to the FY2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-141). Initially LIHEAP was
funded through a series of CRs at FY2017 levels less an across-the-board reduction of 0.6791%.
On October 20, 2017, HHS announced the first distribution of FY2018 funds to states, tribes, and
territories, totaling more than $3 billion. After the final FY2018 appropriations bill was enacted,
HHS announced distribution of remaining funds on April 23, 2018. Net allocations from the two
distributions 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 FY2018 funding for all grantees.
Table B-2 shows the total amount of LIHEAP regular and emergency contingency funds
distributed to each state from FY2008 through FY2017; the totals include funds distributed to
tribes within the states. Funding for the territories is in the last rows of the table, after 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 FY2019. The table shows authorization levels
for LIHEAP regular funds, Administration budget requests for both regular and emergency
contingency funds, the total amount of regular and emergency contingency funds appropriated in
each fiscal year, and the total amount of emergency contingency funds distributed.
Table B-1. FY2018 Regular Fund Allocations to States,Tribes, and Territories
(dollars in millions)
First Distribution Announced
October 20, 2017
States and
Territories
Net Funding to
States and
Territories:
$2.994 billion
(a)
Amounts to
Tribes:
$34 million
(b)
Second Distribution Announced
April 23, 2018
Net Funding to
States and
Territories:
$603 million
(c)
Amounts to
Tribes:
$7 million
(d)
Total Funding
Distributed to
States, Tribes,
and Territories:
$3.637 billion
(e)
Alabama
40.162
0.241
11.085
0.066
51.554
Alaska
9.102
6.523
1.850
1.303
18.779
Arizona
18.651
0.889
8.049
0.384
27.972
Arkansas
25.955
California
159.234
Colorado
44.238
Connecticut
67.254
Delaware
District of Columbia
5.179
0.630
31.865
31.134
0.126
191.855
8.937
53.175
13.483
80.738
11.383
2.270
13.653
9.277
1.872
11.149
Congressional Research Service
0.001
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
27
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
First Distribution Announced
October 20, 2017
States and
Territories
Net Funding to
States and
Territories:
$2.994 billion
(a)
Amounts to
Tribes:
$34 million
(b)
Second Distribution Announced
April 23, 2018
Net Funding to
States and
Territories:
$603 million
(c)
Florida
63.919
Georgia
50.546
21.814
72.360
Hawaii
4.172
0.833
5.004
Idaho
16.994
Illinois
149.460
Indiana
67.665
Iowa
47.959
Kansas
30.139
Kentucky
44.628
8.943
53.572
Louisiana
40.133
7.987
48.120
Maine
33.704
Maryland
68.107
Massachusetts
122.838
0.098
24.767
0.020
147.723
Michigan
140.943
0.956
20.335
0.123
162.357
Minnesota
102.230
Mississippi
27.110
Missouri
67.450
Montana
17.287
3.662
3.489
0.739
25.177
Nebraska
26.220
0.016
5.293
0.002
31.531
Nevada
9.177
3.961
13.138
New Hampshire
23.297
4.697
27.994
New Jersey
105.991
21.419
127.410
New Mexico
15.621
0.853
3.133
0.171
19.778
New York
327.238
0.178
47.180
0.026
374.621
North Carolina
79.723
1.534
15.885
0.306
97.447
North Dakota
17.296
5.462
3.490
1.102
27.350
Ohio
132.219
Oklahoma
30.711
4.219
6.131
0.824
41.886
Oregon
31.499
0.582
4.553
0.072
36.707
Pennsylvania
178.634
Rhode Island
22.374
South Carolina
32.088
Congressional Research Service
0.010
0.867
27.586
Amounts to
Tribes:
$7 million
(d)
Total Funding
Distributed to
States, Tribes,
and Territories:
$3.637 billion
(e)
3.430
0.004
91.520
0.175
21.465
21.548
0.006
9.756
171.008
0.001
77.428
6.915
0.041
1.279
6.033
5.089
54.874
0.005
36.217
0.193
40.265
13.573
81.680
14.739
0.055
5.418
116.969
0.011
32.594
13.603
81.052
21.832
154.051
36.147
0.038
4.484
214.781
0.008
26.904
11.019
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
43.107
28
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
First Distribution Announced
October 20, 2017
States and
Territories
Net Funding to
States and
Territories:
$2.994 billion
(a)
Amounts to
Tribes:
$34 million
(b)
Second Distribution Announced
April 23, 2018
Net Funding to
States and
Territories:
$603 million
(c)
South Dakota
15.598
Tennessee
53.325
10.647
63.972
Texas
106.357
45.901
152.258
Utah
20.981
Vermont
16.952
3.421
20.373
Virginia
76.488
15.267
91.754
Washington
50.867
West Virginia
25.780
5.203
30.982
Wisconsin
92.022
13.267
105.289
Wyoming
8.239
0.280
1.663
0.057
10.239
2,979.237
33.505
599.752
6.635
3,619.129
Subtotal to States and
Tribes
2.885
3.148
Amounts to
Tribes:
$7 million
(d)
Total Funding
Distributed to
States, Tribes,
and Territories:
$3.637 billion
(e)
0.297
4.234
1.903
7.332
0.582
22.213
0.060
25.572
0.276
60.378
American Samoa
0.250
0.050
0.301
Guam
0.549
0.111
0.660
Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana
Islands
0.191
0.038
0.229
Puerto Rico
13.630
2.743
16.373
U.S. Virgin Islands
0.519
0.105
0.624
15.139
3.047
18.187
Subtotal to Territories
Total
2,994.376
33.505
602.799
6.635
3,637.316
Source: Funding levels are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for
Children and Families, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/fy-2018-funding-release and
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/fy-2018-second-and-final-liheap-funding-release.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
29
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Table B-2. LIHEAP Funding by State: FY2008 to FY2017
(dollars in millions)
Total Funds Distributeda
(regular and emergency contingency, where appropriated)
State
(includes tribal
allotments)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
Alabama
19.221
64.274
69.016
61.570
47.408
48.269
48.885
44.387
43.551
44.941
Alaska
16.856
30.928
28.182
24.727
18.002
17.171
18.841
17.482
17.496
17.488
Arizona
9.296
31.084
37.422
33.844
23.852
23.343
23.641
21.581
21.062
21.734
Arkansas
14.667
39.711
40.000
36.401
28.537
26.746
27.505
26.777
27.858
26.819
California
103.117
248.487
234.215
211.554
154.574
145.410
153.592
174.086
177.168
171.344
Colorado
41.326
71.352
70.675
65.035
47.308
44.270
46.378
48.889
49.002
51.041
Connecticut
65.618
125.887
107.845
102.919
79.532
76.014
77.413
85.764
80.690
78.713
Delaware
6.929
18.748
16.847
15.854
11.957
12.573
13.016
12.547
12.574
12.036
District of
Columbia
7.284
16.249
16.067
14.641
10.687
9.976
10.474
10.379
10.387
10.382
Florida
30.414
101.701
129.014
110.783
78.040
76.376
77.351
70.611
68.911
71.111
Georgia
24.047
80.410
102.091
87.862
61.702
60.387
61.158
55.829
54.485
56.224
Hawaii
2.403
5.182
6.589
6.235
6.107
5.416
6.159
5.622
5.487
5.143
Idaho
13.916
30.012
30.158
28.199
20.576
19.207
20.166
19.982
19.999
19.989
Illinois
149.216
265.679
265.542
248.941
185.684
160.191
167.458
167.396
166.270
167.396
Indiana
67.561
116.487
117.575
107.584
80.006
72.374
75.820
75.792
75.282
75.792
Iowa
47.881
76.929
74.524
71.589
54.813
51.292
53.735
53.715
53.354
53.715
Kansas
22.137
49.541
46.262
43.924
32.160
31.397
31.019
30.717
31.921
33.606
Kentucky
30.588
75.055
67.832
61.111
46.423
43.483
48.288
44.896
46.713
48.634
Louisiana
19.651
61.502
59.054
54.895
43.422
40.864
42.062
38.390
42.234
42.462
Maine
46.536
79.187
60.428
56.541
39.982
37.414
39.195
39.181
38.917
39.181
Maryland
35.913
109.164
90.005
88.926
69.790
70.390
68.513
68.854
72.255
74.051
Massachusetts
126.492
213.500
196.602
183.854
132.731
132.256
140.014
146.328
148.768
147.242
Michigan
141.667
249.416
276.447
238.425
173.450
165.582
165.444
161.827
157.859
158.928
Minnesota
102.063
163.982
160.089
152.559
116.839
109.335
114.541
114.498
113.728
114.498
Mississippi
16.479
42.622
46.650
40.635
31.591
29.313
30.120
26.996
29.051
29.746
Missouri
59.603
114.902
107.145
100.193
68.231
66.553
70.882
73.772
73.295
73.618
Montana
18.907
35.202
34.530
33.072
24.135
22.529
23.654
23.438
23.457
23.446
Nebraska
23.679
44.086
42.893
41.447
30.226
28.214
29.623
29.353
29.377
29.363
Nevada
4.366
14.599
18.218
15.868
11.203
10.964
11.104
10.136
9.892
10.208
New Hampshire
25.635
47.737
37.423
36.050
26.055
24.321
25.536
25.750
26.399
28.546
New Jersey
108.707
185.773
199.455
188.792
136.746
124.480
124.570
126.586
127.094
120.142
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
30
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Total Funds Distributeda
(regular and emergency contingency, where appropriated)
State
(includes tribal
allotments)
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
New Mexico
11.638
27.451
24.739
23.543
17.074
15.938
16.734
17.844
18.766
18.600
New York
359.628
538.243
537.348
521.925
375.710
350.169
366.843
381.440
364.242
366.707
North Carolina
42.383
132.528
127.139
116.205
83.011
87.702
88.271
86.504
86.702
85.848
North Dakota
20.539
38.240
36.668
35.936
26.218
24.473
25.695
25.460
25.482
25.469
Ohio
132.004
245.750
253.035
234.875
165.463
144.794
154.314
148.087
147.091
148.087
Oklahoma
17.668
52.878
53.190
49.378
36.094
35.955
37.147
36.338
36.844
37.498
Oregon
27.650
51.460
52.029
47.861
36.666
34.311
35.945
35.931
35.690
35.931
Pennsylvania
191.759
308.394
315.357
294.486
209.548
190.810
203.071
206.356
203.405
209.107
Rhode Island
20.875
38.653
34.444
31.274
23.241
23.976
23.813
27.361
26.002
25.333
South Carolina
15.266
51.047
56.232
48.649
36.270
38.335
38.825
35.442
34.588
35.693
South Dakota
16.681
31.058
29.989
29.259
21.293
19.877
20.869
20.678
20.696
20.686
Tennessee
30.985
80.512
84.899
74.390
55.405
56.856
58.040
55.161
56.101
58.666
Texas
50.599
169.196
212.807
184.201
129.832
127.064
128.686
117.473
114.645
118.304
Utah
19.204
35.755
35.003
33.537
24.513
22.882
24.025
23.806
23.825
23.814
Vermont
19.370
36.156
27.941
26.959
19.529
18.230
19.140
18.965
18.981
18.972
Virginia
43.746
127.668
109.927
107.215
80.436
78.971
81.877
81.432
83.926
83.571
Washington
45.481
84.645
83.989
78.688
60.310
56.437
59.124
59.102
58.705
59.102
West Virginia
20.157
45.019
43.363
40.786
29.700
27.723
29.108
28.842
28.866
28.852
Wisconsin
91.872
147.608
145.214
137.390
105.172
98.417
103.103
103.065
102.372
103.065
Wyoming
7.689
14.315
14.124
13.444
9.815
9.162
9.619
9.531
9.539
9.535
Subtotal to
States and
Tribes
2,587
5,066
5,066
4,694
3,437
3,248
3,370
3,370
3,351
3,370
American Samoa
0.050
0.111
0.113
0.105
0.077
0.073
0.280
0.280
0.279
0.280
Guam
0.109
0.244
0.247
0.229
0.169
0.160
0.614
0.614
0.611
0.614
Commonwealth
of the Northern
Mariana Islands
0.038
0.085
0.086
0.080
0.059
0.055
0.213
0.213
0.212
0.213
Puerto Rico
2.713
6.063
6.137
5.692
4.196
3.966
15.248
15.248
15.160
15.248
U.S. Virgin Islands
0.103
0.231
0.234
0.217
0.160
0.151
0.581
0.581
0.578
0.581
Subtotal to
Territoriesb
3.014
6.734
6.816
6.322
4.661
4.405
16.937
16.937
16.839
16.937
Leveraging/
REACHc
—d
27.000
27.000
0
26.949
0
0
0
0
0
Training/
tech. asst.e
0.292
0.300
0.300
0.300
2.994
2.838
2.958
2.988
2.988
2.988
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
31
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Total Funds Distributeda
(regular and emergency contingency, where appropriated)
State
(includes tribal
allotments)
Total
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
2,591
5,100
5,100
4,701
3,472
3,255
3,390
3,390
3,371
3,390
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) funding data.
a. The totals shown in these columns include regular fund allocations to states and tribes, and any contingency
funds awarded to states and tribes in that year.
b. The statute provides that HHS must set aside not less than one-tenth of 1% and not more than one-half of
1% for use in the territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands). In FY2014, HHS went from providing slightly more than 0.1% to 0.5%.
c. The statute provides a separate funding authorization for competitive grants under the leveraging incentive
program (designed to encourage states to increase nonfederal support for energy assistance). It also
provides that up to 25% of any leveraging funds made available may be reserved for competitive REACH
grants (for state efforts to increase efficient use of energy among low-income households and to reduce
their vulnerability to homelessness and other problems due to high energy costs). Congress may stipulate in
appropriations acts that a certain portion of the LIHEAP regular funds can be set aside for leveraging and
REACH grants.
d. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) did not specify funds for leveraging incentive
and REACH grants.
e. The statute provides that HHS may reserve up to $300,000 for making grants or entering into contracts
with states, public agencies, or private nonprofits that provide training and technical assistance related to
achieving the purposes of the LIHEAP program. Since FY2012, Congress has increased the amount available
in annual appropriations acts.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
32
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Table B-3. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2019
(dollars in thousands)
Regular Fundsa
Emergency Contingency Fundsb
Fiscal
Year
Authorized
President’s
Request
Appropriated
President’s
Request
Appropriated
Distributed
Total
Distributed
1982
1,875,000
1,400,000
1,875,000
—
—
—
1,875,000
1983
1,875,000
1,300,000
1,975,000
—
—
—
1,975,000
1984
1,875,000
1,300,000
2,075,000
—
—
—
2,075,000
1985
2,140,000
1,875,000
2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1986
2,275,000
2,097,765
2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1987
2,050,000
2,097,642
1,825,000
—
—
—
1,825,000
1988
2,132,000
1,237,000
1,531,840
—
—
—
1,531,840
1989
2,218,000
1,187,000
1,383,200
—
—
—
1,383,200
1990
2,307,000
1,100,000
1,443,000
—
—
—
1,443,000
1991
2,150,000
1,050,000
1,415,055
NAc
195,180
195,180
1,610,235
1992
2,230,000
925,000
1,500,000
100,000
300,000
0
1,500,000
1993
ssand
1,065,000
1,346,030
0
595,200
0
1,346,030
1994
ssand
1,507,408
1,437,402
0
600,000
300,000
1,737,402
1995
2,000,000
1,475,000
1,319,202
e
600,000
100,000
1,419,202
1996
2,000,000
1,319,204
900,000
f
180,000
180,000
1,080,000
1997
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
420,000
215,000
1,215,000
1998
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
300,000
300,000
160,000
1,160,000
1999
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
300,000
300,000
175,299
1,275,299
2000
ssand
1,100,000
1,100,000
300,000
900,000
744,350g
1,844350g
2001
ssand
1,100,000
1,400,000
300,000
600,000h
455,650i
1,855,650
300,000
100,000j
1,800,000
1,988,300
2002
2,000,000
1,400,000
1,700,000
300,000
300,000
0
200,000l
2003
2,000,000
1,400,000
1,788,300k
2004
2,000,000
1,700,000
1,789,380
300,000
99,410
99,410
1,888,790
2005
5,100,000
1,900,500m,n
1,884,799
200,000
297,600
277,250
2,162,050
2006
5,100,000
1,800,000m
2,480,000
200,000
681,000
679,960
3,160,000
2007
5,100,000
1,782,000
1,980,000
0
181,000
181,000
2,161,000
2008
—o
1,500,000
1,980,000
282,000
590,328
610,678p
2,590,678
2009
—o
1,700,000
4,509,672
300,000
590,328
590,328
5,100,000
2010
—o
2,410,000q
4,509,672
790,000
590,328
590,678
5,100,350
2011
—o
2,510,000r
4,500,653s
790,000
200,000
200,000
4,700,653
2012
—o
1,980,000
3,471,672t
590,000
0
0
3,471,672
2013
—o
2,820,000
3,290,083u
200,000
0
0
3,255,436v
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
33
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
Regular Fundsa
Emergency Contingency Fundsb
Fiscal
Year
Authorized
President’s
Request
Appropriated
President’s
Request
Appropriated
Distributed
Total
Distributed
2014
—o
2,820,000w
3,424,549
150,000
0
0
3,390,304v
2015
—o
2,550,000w
3,390,304
200,000
0
0
3,390,304
2016
—o
3,190,000x
3,390,304
0x
0
0
3,370.831v
2017
—o
3,300,304y
3,390,304
0y
0
0
3,390,304
2018
—o
0
3,640,304
0
0
0
3,640,304
2019
—o
0
—
0
—
—
—
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of HHS budget justifications.
a. Regular funds include amounts distributed to states, tribes, and territories; leveraging incentive and REACH
grants; and funds for training and technical assistance.
b. In 1994, a permanent $600 million annual authorization for emergency contingency funding was enacted. As
shown, however, before this authorization emergency contingency funds were sometimes made available.
c. Emergency contingency funds were first allocated in January of 1991 due to the price of home heating oil
(P.L. 101-517). Funds were not requested in the President’s budget until FY1992.
d. Such sums as necessary.
e. The President’s FY1995 request would have made the unallocated contingency funds that were
appropriated in FY1994 (P.L. 103-112) available until expended.
f.
The President’s FY1996 request would have made the unallocated contingency funds that were
appropriated in FY1995 (P.L. 103-333) available until expended.
g. The Administration released $400 million of the FY2000 contingency funds in late September 2000, making
them effectively available to states in FY2001.
h. The initial contingency fund appropriation for FY2001 was $300 million (P.L. 106-554). The Administration
released the entire amount by December 30, 2000. On July 24, 2001, the 2001 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-20) provided an additional $300 million in contingency funds.
i.
The distributed contingency funds in FY2001 included the $300 million appropriated in P.L. 106-554 and the
amount remaining from FY2000 (approximately $156 million). The $300 million that was appropriated as
part of P.L. 107-20 was made available until expended; a portion was distributed in FY2003 and the
remainder was converted to regular funds that same year.
j.
The FY2002 contingency funds were distributed out of the total FY2002 contingency appropriation (P.L.
107-20). With the end of FY2002, the remainder of the contingency funds expired ($200 million).
k. The FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7) included $1.688 billion in new regular funds and converted into
regular funds $100 million of remaining contingency funds originally appropriated in FY2001 (P.L. 107-20).
l.
FY2003 contingency funds were distributed out of contingency dollars appropriated as part of the FY2001
supplemental (P.L. 107-20).
m. Of the amounts requested by the President in FY2005 and FY2006, $500,000 was to be set aside for a
national evaluation.
n. In FY2005, the President’s initial budget request for LIHEAP regular funds was $1,800,000,500. However, on
November 14, 2004, the President submitted a budget amendment to Congress, requesting $1,900,000,500
for LIHEAP regular funds.
o. Appropriations for LIHEAP were not explicitly authorized from FY2008 through FY2018.
p. Of the emergency contingency funds distributed in FY2008, $20 million came from funds appropriated in
the FY2005 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (P.L.
108-447). Contingency funds in P.L. 108-447 were made available until expended.
q. In FY2010, the President proposed that a mechanism be created whereby additional LIHEAP funds would be
released when energy price increases reached certain levels; the proposal was not adopted by Congress.
The Administration estimated that this “trigger” would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of
$450 million. This estimate is not included in the table.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
34
LIHEAP: Program and Funding
r.
s.
t.
u.
v.
w.
x.
y.
In FY2011, the President again proposed a trigger to release additional LIHEAP funds. In addition to
proposing that funds be released when energy prices increase, the FY2011 proposal would have released
funds when participation in SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) increased above a certain level. The
Administration estimated that this trigger would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of $2 billion.
This estimate is not included in the table.
P.L. 112-10 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% on discretionary accounts. As a result, the
regular fund allocation was reduced from approximately $4.51 billion to $4.50 billion.
P.L. 112-74 imposed an across-the-board rescission of 0.189% on discretionary accounts, bringing the total
available for LIHEAP down from $3.478 billion to $3.472 billion. See Division F, Title V, Section 527.
The FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) funded LIHEAP and most
other federal programs at FY2012 levels. However, imposition of reductions through sequestration,
including an across-the-board reduction of 0.2% applied in order to stay within the caps set by the Budget
Control Act, reduced funding for LIHEAP from $3.472 billion to $3.290 billion.
The appropriations acts give HHS the authority to transfer funds within the agency. In FY2013 and FY2014,
HHS transferred approximately $35 million from LIHEAP, reducing the total available for distribution. In
FY2016, HHS transferred approximately $19 million.
The President’s FY2014 and FY2015 budgets also proposed $50 million for a new competitive grant that
would be used to help low-income households reduce their energy burdens. The $50 million is not included
in the request in the table.
The President’s FY2016 budget proposed an additional $200 million for a new competitive grant, called the
Utility Innovation Fund, to help reduce energy burdens of low-income households. In addition, as in FY2010
and FY2011, the budget proposed that emergency contingency funds be funded through mandatory
appropriations based on increased energy prices, extreme cold, or participation in SNAP. Neither of these
proposals is included in the table.
Similar to proposals in FY2010, FY2011, and FY2016, the President’s FY2017 budget proposed that
emergency contingency funds be funded through mandatory appropriations based on increased energy
prices, extreme temperatures, or participation in SNAP. This proposal is not included in the table.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Housing Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
Acknowledgments
This report benefitted from the research assistance of Jean-Luc Tilly, an intern with the Congressional
Research Service, who delved into the legislative history of energy assistance programs in the 1970s and
1980s.
Congressional Research Service
RL31865 · VERSION 123 · UPDATED
35
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.