The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding

Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy

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 block grant program under 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, 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 households pay for heating and cooling costs, for crisis assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as counseling) to reduce the need for energy assistance. According to the most recent data available from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in FY2006, 49.6% of funds went to pay for heating assistance, 3.6% of funds was used for cooling aid, 17.8% of funds went to crisis assistance, and 10.0% was used for weatherization. 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. However, in both the FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations acts, Congress gave states the authority to raise their LIHEAP eligibility standards to 75% of state median income. In FY2006, the most recent year for which HHS data are available, an estimated 34.4 million households were eligible for LIHEAP under the federal statutory guidelines. According to HHS, 5.5 million households received heating or winter crisis assistance and approximately 500,000 households received cooling assistance that same year. 

On December 16, 2009, the President signed the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), which provided a total of $5.1 billion for LIHEAP, the same amount that was appropriated in FY2009. Of this amount, approximately $4.5 billion was appropriated as regular funds and $590 million as emergency contingency funds. The FY2010 appropriation also maintained the distribution of regular funds set out in the FY2009 appropriations act, with approximately $840 million allocated according to the "new" LIHEAP formula and the remainder—approximately $3.67 billion—distributed according to the proportions of the "old" formula. Unlike the FY2009 appropriation, however, where Congress required HHS to release the emergency contingency funds within 30 days of the law's enactment, P.L. 111-117 did not specify that funds must be released within a certain time frame. 

For FY2011, the President has proposed to provide $2.51 billion for LIHEAP regular funds and $790 million for emergency contingency funds. In addition, the Administration would create a trigger for additional LIHEAP funds to be released when energy prices or participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) increase above certain levels. According to the budget, this trigger would result in an estimated $2 billion in mandatory budget authority in FY2011. 

This report describes LIHEAP funding, current issues, legislation, program rules, and eligibility. .


Date of Report: February 5, 2010
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RL31865
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Waiver Authority Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

Transportation fuels are required by federal law to contain a minimum amount of renewable fuel each year. This renewable fuel standard (RFS), established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct, P.L. 109-58) and amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140), requires that 12.95 billion gallons of renewable fuels be blended into gasoline and other transportation fuels in 2010. Most of this mandate will be met using corn-based ethanol. However, within the overall RFS there are secondary mandates for the use of cellulosic biofuels, biomass-based diesel fuels, and other advanced biofuels. Questions have been raised over whether there is enough feedstock supply and production capacity to meet these carveouts. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to waive the RFS requirements, in whole or in part, if certain conditions outlined in the law are present. In 2008 the governor of Texas requested a waiver of the RFS because of high grain prices, although that waiver request was denied because EPA determined that the RFS requirements alone did not "severely harm the economy of a State, a region, or the United States," a standard required by the statute. In February 2010, as part of a final rulemaking implementing the RFS as expanded by EISA, EPA waived most of the 2010 cellulosic biofuel carveout—EISA set the mandate at 100 million gallons but EPA is only requiring 6.5 million gallons, more than 90% less than scheduled by EISA. EPA cited a lack of current and expected production capacity, driven largely by a lack of investment in commercial-scale refineries. 

This report provides a brief overview of the RFS program and discusses the process and criteria for EPA to approve a waiver petition. .


Date of Report: February 18, 2010
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: RS22870
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of Policy Issues for Congress

Kelsi Bracmort
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

Cellulosic biofuels are produced from cellulose (fibrous material) derived from renewable biomass. They are thought by many to hold the key to increased benefits from renewable biofuels because they are made from potentially low-cost, diverse, non-food feedstocks. Cellulosic biofuels could also potentially decrease the fossil energy required to produce ethanol, resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

Cellulosic biofuels are produced on a very small scale at this time—significant hurdles must be overcome before commercial-scale production can occur. The renewable fuels standard (RFS), a major federal incentive, mandates the use of 100 million gallons per year (mgpy) of cellulosic biofuels in 2010. After 2015, most of the increase in the RFS is intended to come from cellulosic biofuels, and by 2022, the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be 16 billion gallons. Whether these targets can be met is uncertain. Research is ongoing, and the cellulosic biofuels industry may be on the verge of rapid expansion and technical breakthroughs. However, at this time, only a few small refineries are scheduled to begin production in 2010, with an additional nine expected to commence production by 2013 for a total output of 389 mgpy, compared with an RFS requirement of 500 mgpy in 2012 (a year earlier). 

The federal government, recognizing the risk inherent in commercializing this new technology, has provided loan guarantees, grants, and tax credits in an effort to make the industry competitive by 2012. In particular, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill, P.L. 110-246) supports the nascent cellulosic industry through authorized research programs, grants, and loans exceeding $1 billion. The enacted farm bill also contains a production tax credit of $1.01 per gallon for ethanol produced from cellulosic feedstocks. Private investment, in many cases by oil companies, also plays a major role in cellulosic biofuels research and development. 

Three challenges must be overcome if the RFS is to be met. First, cellulosic feedstocks must be available in large volumes when needed by refineries. Second, the cost of converting cellulose to ethanol or other biofuels must be reduced to a level to make it competitive with gasoline and corn-starch ethanol. Third, the marketing, distribution, and vehicle infrastructure must absorb the increasing volumes of renewable fuel, including cellulosic fuel mandated by the RFS. 

Congress will continue to face questions about the appropriate level of intervention in the cellulosic industry as it debates both the risks in trying to pick the winning technology and the benefits of providing start-up incentives. The current tax credit for cellulosic biofuels is set to expire in 2012, but its extension may be considered during the 111th Congress. Congress may continue to debate the role of biofuels in food price inflation and whether cellulosic biofuels can alleviate its impacts. Recent congressional action on cellulosic biofuels has focused on the definition of renewable biomass eligible for the RFS, which is considered by some to be overly restrictive. To this end, legislation has been introduced to expand the definition of renewable biomass eligible under the RFS. .


Date of Report: February 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: RL34738
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

CRS Issue Statement on Energy and Water Development Appropriations

Carl E. Behrens, Coordinator
Specialist in Energy Policy

The Energy and Water Development appropriations bill provides funding for civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Department of Energy (DOE), and a number of independent agencies. 

Funding for the Corps attracts wide interest among Members of Congress. Most appropriations for the Corps' civil works activities are directed to specific projects. Many of these projects are identified in the budget request and others are added during congressional deliberations of the agency's appropriations. As a result, the agency's funding is often part of the debate over earmarks. 

In addition to regular appropriations, the Corps in recent years has received considerable funding in supplemental appropriations, particularly for hurricane protection work in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. In addition, the Corps received extra funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). 

The Bureau of Reclamation built or assisted building most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the West. BOR's mission was to develop water supplies, primarily for irrigation to reclaim arid lands in the West. Today, BOR manages hundreds of dams and diversion projects. BOR facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. At the same time, operations of BOR facilities are often controversial, particularly for their effect on fish and wildlife species and conflicts among competing water users 

The largest share of Energy and Water Development funding goes to DOE, an agency with an extremely diverse combination of missions. In addition to energy supply and conservation programs, DOE maintains the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and funds several Power Marketing Administrations that distribute power generated at federal hydropower facilities. It is the third largest federal funder of basic research, conducting basic science research in six program areas. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous agency within DOE, maintains the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. DOE also has a large program to decontaminate and clean up sites where nuclear weapons were produced in the past. 

The Congress and the Obama Administration have shifted the emphasis of DOE's energy programs with massive increases in funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, both in the regular appropriations bills and in the ARRA. DOE's weapons site cleanup program also received a large appropriation in ARRA, as did science programs.


Date of Report: January 12, 2010
Number of Pages: 3
Order Number: IS40651
Price: $0.00 (This is the whole Report less Issue Team Members)

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: The CAFE Standards

Brent D. Yacobucci
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

Robert Bamberger
Specialist in Energy Policy

On May 19, 2009, President Obama announced a plan to integrate CAFE standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with automotive greenhouse gas emissions standards to be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On September 15, 2009, EPA and NHTSA issued proposed rules. The Administration has stated that the proposal would require an increase in fuel economy standards to as much as 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by model year (MY) 2016, four years ahead of the deadline set in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140). The Administration estimates that the total cost of complying with EISA and the new proposal will add $1,100 to the cost of an average MY2016 vehicle (compared to MY2011), although this additional purchase cost is expected to be paid back through lifetime fuel savings. The objective of the new greenhouse gas standards would be to reach reduction levels similar to those adopted by the state of California, although some specifics of the requirement would be different. However, while the rulemaking process will be combined, in their joint proposal, EPA and NHTSA recognize that some parts of the GHG program will not translate to the CAFE program, and vice versa. Therefore, EPA and NHTSA expect that the achieved fuel economy will be somewhat lower than 35.5 mpg as automakers will use credits from changes in air conditioner refrigerants and other greenhouse gas reductions to comply with the program, but which have no bearing on fuel economy. 

On March 27, 2009, NHTSA released a final rule establishing fuel economy standards for MY2011 passenger cars and light trucks. EISA restructured the automotive fuel economy program to establish a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 35 mpg by MY2020 for the combined passenger automobile and light truck fleet. However, to meet the combined standard, automakers will continue the practice of calculating the CAFE of their car and light truck fleets separately. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), issued in March 2008, covered MY2011-2015. To provide opportunity to conduct additional analysis to support the setting of standards for the later model years, the Obama Administration, on January 26, 2009, directed NHTSA to finalize a rule solely for MY2011. NHTSA expects that MY2011 rule will result in fuel economy for MY2011 passenger cars and light trucks at 30.2 mpg and 24.1 mpg, respectively. The combined fuel economy for both fleets is expected to be 27.3 mpg, somewhat lower than the 27.8 mpg originally proposed. The standards are "attribute" based; every new vehicle will have its own target, based on its size. .


Date of Report: January 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R40166
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail congress@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.