LC: 14.2%/2 J V NO WNW C15 8002} RPROPERTY 0 F O L E N :’i. 5 B RA R Y washingion University WA WEE "‘?1E‘»- . ".“$.x:‘2,, K? 2‘ “H :‘ .‘*=a=,r.a.*,i I-152 5 L gr» 3‘ ;: M a Y Issue Brief 16 1989 L§s‘.;:»r»,_ .~5t2‘i}’§::,:S' ST. LOUIS, Mo. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ENERGY ASSISTANCE FOR LG?-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IBBOOZB RUTH OR : R ichardson, J oe Education and Public welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL REEARCH SERVICE MAJOR Issdgs sysrzn DAE ORIGINATED Q DATE UPDATED Q FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 01123 CRS- 1 A Inaoozu UPDATE-O14/23/SO .?§13.§...12§El.1iI..1'.l9E The announcement of oil-price decontrol in April 1979 and the substantial increases in home energy costs, especially heating fuel costs, over the past year have spurred action to provide Federal aid to low-income households afaced with rapidly rising residential energy expenditures. Recent and projected home energy price increases, led by a jump of more than 70% in heating oil prices, could push these expenses to over 20% of the income available to low-income households. An even greater proportion of income may be needed in many areas.during the heating season. The immediate Federal response has been the appropriation of $1.6 billion for three interim programs of home energy aid during the 1979/1980 winter. This aid is now being pmovided through local agencies and one—time special energy allowance checks to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients. For the longer term, the Administration proposed a two-part program of federally funded payments to low-income households coupled with continued "energy crisis" assistance, at a total cost of $2.u billion per year. Congress has not accepted the Administration's proposal. Conferees have included provisions for a $3 billion FY81 Home Energy Assistance program of block grants to states in the "windfall profit" tax bill (H.R. 3919). Although a number of program design issues were not fully resolved in the provisions for low-income home energy aid included in H.R. 3919, authority to waive provisions of the legislation was included and congressional review is .pected because authorization terminates in one year. §§gg_§g;_A§§;§tangg Because of the recent rapid rise in home energy costs and lack of a definition of "need," there is almost no information on the degree to which low-income households need or will need assistance. Up to this point, program cost estimates have typically been arbitrary dollar figures; the impetus to provide home eergy aid has not come from firm estimates of need. Rather, it has arisen out of a perception that home energy cost increases have far outpaced any increases in income available to low-income households. What little information exists suggests that if properly directed, $1/$3 billion in aid to low-income households could significantly ameliorate the current situation —— if the goal is to provide substantial aid primarily for home heating costs, but including some aid for other home energy costs, to a large proportion of the lower-income population. The final report of the Department of Energy's Fuel Oil Marketing Advisory Committee (FOMAC) in July 1979 suggested a $3.2 billion program (including administrative costs). Preliminary work done at the Urban Institute indicates potential room for assistance among lower-income households at $1.7/$2.1 billion. In these analyses of need and costs, it was assumed that the home energy spending of Jaw-income households should be reduced to 10 to 15% of income, still above e estimated average of 5 to 10% for the general population. Another measure of potential costs is the experience of the Community Services Administration (CSA) Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP). with limited funding of $200 million and eligibility set at 125% of the "poverty cRs- 2 Inaoozu u1>na'.m~:—o u/23/so levels,“ coupled with a requirement for the existence of an energy-related crisis, this program provided heating-related assistance to nearly 1 million households in the 1978/fl979 winter, at an average benefit level of $220 I ‘ household. As a proportion of household income, the very preliminary work done so far suggests that, for the "median" low-income household, annual home energy costs (including heating and other costs) were about 18% ($600) of income in 1978 and may be greater than 20% in 1980. This is compared to about 5% ($800) for the "median" household in the general population, rising to perhaps 6 or 7%. From another perspective, it is suggested that heating costs consume about half the home energy expenditures of the low-income population, and that about 20% spend more than 1u% of their incwme on residential energy (that is, spend more than double the proportion spent by the population in general). However, it must be emphasized that uprto-date data that correlate home energy costs with income are not collected and that the picture presented by preliminary estimates averages a wide range of incomes and energy costs that, in reality, differ substantially by region, housing type, fuel type, and other factors. So far, preliminary estimates have been derived by piecing together numerous and not always compatible sources of information, or by "modeling" need through the use of computer simulations. E§;§ting_gggg;gm§. Aside from the interim programs operating during the 1979/1980 winter (discussed below), the~only Federal program of assistance to low-income households for home energy costs is the Community Servir 3 Administration (CSA) Energy Crisis Assistance Program (ECAP). This program has been continued and expanded as part of the interim efforts this winter. ECAP, also known as the Special Crisis Intervention Program (SCIP), and as the Crisis Intervention Program (CI?) in earlier years, originated when the authority provided by the 197a amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act (now section 222(a)(5)) was used to fund crisis-related energy assistance through local community action agencies. Beginning in FY77, the program was funded at $200 million per year and prcwided aid to low-income households facing immediate crises related to high heating costs. Under the CSA program, State plans designate local administering agencies (generally, community action agencies) and the types of assistance to be provided. Benefits may be in cash or in kind, and may be granted directly to eligible households or provided through fuel suppliers. The maximum benefit is generally $000 per household, although higher or lower limits may be set by the State. Eligibility extends to households with incomes below 125% of the "poverty levels“ (no $8,375 for a four-person household) and, automatically, to households whose heads receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, with priority given to the elderly. Although for this winter the requirement for some type of energy-related emergency has been reoved, applicant households may have to meet other, State-established eligibility (standards beyond the income requirements. A number of State-financed energy assistance initiatives also exi . According to a recent survey done for the Ohio state legislature, at least 13 state programs of direct aid for (residential energy costs have been implemented since 1975, excluding one-time emergency aid payments, crisis intervention activities, and "lifeline" programs. some were 1~year efforts only. CRS- 3 IBBOOZH UPDATE-O4/23/80 More than half of the State initiatives implemented so far have provided aid only to the elderly or elderly and disabled poor. About one-third of the ograms have provided some aid to qualified households in the form of credits toward -State income taxes. Another third granted aid through reduction in utility bills, sometimes funded through reductions in State sales taxes levied on pmoviders. The remainder have made use of a wide variety of benefit delivery mechanisms such as vouchers, energy stamps, two-party checks, and other types of restricted aid that could only be used « for the purchase of home energy fuels. The level of benefits in the programs surveyed varied between.$5O and $500 per household; most benefit levels were a in the $100/$200 range. Finally, the broad spectrum of ongoing welfare and housing programs, along . with the inflation indexing of benefits such as Social Security, provides some aid in meeting rising home energy costs. Benefits to recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and State-financed General Assistance are examples of largely unindexed welfare payments that might be increased in response to home energy cost increases if States so choose- Social Security and S51 benefits are directly indexed annually for overall inflation and, thereby, take into account some of the effect of rising energy costs. To a limited degree, the Food Stamp Program allows excessively high home energy costs to be "deducted" and thereby increases food stamp benefits- Housing programs, such as the “section 8" program and low-rent public housing, provide assistance that is intended to keep recipients‘ total shelter costs (including fuel and utilities) below about 25% of income. ghg_131g;12§Q_ ;ntg;;m_ grgggamg. In P.L. 96-126, the FY80 Interior partment appropriations measure, Congress included $1.35 billion appropriated for home energy assistance to low—income households. Together 9 with the regular CSA appropriation for tnergy crisis assistance ($250 million), this has made $1.6 billion available for aid during the 1979/1980 winter. In appropriating the $1.6 billion for this winter, Congress chose to r split it between three interim programs, administered by CSA and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The ongoing CSA program (BCAP) is funded at $400 million. The bulk ($35u million) has gone out in grants to States to administer ECAP programs, as discussed above under "Existing Programs," through local agencies. However, $u6 million of the total was reserved for administrative costs, special emergency intervention activities, and direct grants to Indians and migrants. The grants to States were allocated using two formulas based, to different '¥ degrees, on the State's low-income population, severity of climate, aggregate residential energy expenditures, and increases in home heating expenditures between 1978 and 1979. HEW is responsible for a special energy allowance program that is providing some $800 million in block grants to States, under which they may ‘s exercise a number of options, including distributing the funding to cash welfare and food stamp recipients, transferring funding to the ECAP program in the State, or designing their own program. Basic responsibility for ‘i program design and administration rests with the State, although States will v“e 125% of the "poverty levels" (about $8,375 for a four-person household) a an income eligibility standard; this is roughly the food stamp income Id eligibility ceiling. Funding was allocated among the States according to a formula based on a State's low-—income population, severity of climate, and increases in home heating expenditures from 1978 to 1979. CRS- ll IBBOOZH UPDATE-Oil/23/80 HEW was alsoiresponsible for administering a $400 million program under which SSI recipients were paid one-time«energy allowance checks in January 1980. Checks were sent to all SSI recipients, except those in "MedicaJ""" institutions, and ranged from $3u (Hawaii) to $250 (the maximum allowed) 4 colder states. The amount of each check varied in rough correspondence with the severity of climate in the recipient's State of residence. However, the amounts were actually determined by dividing each State's allocation of the $fl00 million appropriation by the number of S51 recipients in the State. The State's allocation was set by another formula based on the state's low-income population, severity of climate, increases in home heating expenditures from 1978 to 1979, and SSI recipient population. Table 1 sets out the-State-by-State allocations for the three interim programs operating this winter, including the value of SSI energy allowance checks in each State. The $800 million total for HEW grants to States excludes some $13 million in Federal administrative costs, but includes $13 million transferred from the SSI payment program. Due to the maximum benefit limitation ($250 per recipient) in the SSI energy allowance payment program, $13 million of the suoo million appropriated for this program was transferred to the HEW special energy allowance program of block grants to States, in States where the SSI grant would have exceeded $250. The CSA grant total excludes $46 million reserved by CSA and not sent out as block grants. CRS- 5 IB80024 UPDATE’04/23/80 TABLE 1. Interim Home Energy Aid: Winter 1979-80 —--- SSI Payments ----- HEW grants State CS1 grants to states Individual allocation to States ---.-E:e:..e:-_--_.._-.ml..li9.9.§1--_...12§2.s£i3:.§-_.....(1n.ill..i9.n§).--...(=i2li2n_§L- Alabama $4.3 $44 $6.0 $3.8 Alaska 3.5 250 .7 1.1 Arizona 1.9 55 1.6 1.7 Arkansas 3.3 48 3.6 2.6 California 20.8 44 29.7 15.0 Colorado 10.4 156 4.5 4.3 Connecticut 23.7 250 5.2 8.1 Delaware 2.6 166 1.1 1.1 Dist. of Columbia 3.0 102 1.5 1.3 Florida 2.6 39 6.6 4.4 Georgia 5.7 46 7.0 5.1 Hawaii 34 .3 .2 Idaho 5.4 250 1.7 2.0 Illinois 45.2 170 19.1 20.9 Indiana 21.8 229 8.6 10.0 Iowa 15.2 250 5.9 5.9 Kansas 5.1 131 2.3 2.7 Kentucky 9.5 69 6.4 5.4 Louisiana 2.1 39 5.2 2.6 Maine 12.4 226 4.9 4.4 Maryland 14.5 140 6.5 6.1 Massachusetts 40.4 144 17.8 15.9 Michigan 47.2 177 19.7 19.0 Minnesota 42.2 250 6.8 12.5 Mississippi 2.4 41 4.6 2.6 Missouri 15.9 97 8.2 8.1 Montana 5.7 250 1.6 1.9 Nebraska 6.8 222 2.7 2.9 Nevada 1.5 117 .7 .8 New Hampshire 9.3 250 1.2 2.8 New Jersey 36.2 185 15.0 14.7 New Mexico 3.1 76 1.9 1.7 New York 117.0 -150 51.3 46.5 North Carolina 16.1 73 10.2 8.0 North Dakota 8.1 250 1.5 2.1 Ohio 39.9 151 17.3 18.2 Oklahoma 4.6 58 3.7 3.2 Oregon 11.2 218 4.5 4.2 CRS- 6 IB80024 UPDATE-0'4/23/BO TABIE 1 . (continued) Interim Home Energy Aid: Winter 1979-80 ---- SSI Payments ----- HEW grants State CSA grants to States Individual allocation to States _..-§:c.2:22-..----_...¢ni.l;_i.c2I.z§).--....:>.@.<2§i’2.§-_....(mi.l;1;2I;..s2)......(n;1;;i;-2:-9.1.. Pennsylvania 58.9 157 25.u 25.9 Rhode Island 6.5 190 2.7 2.6 South Carolina 4.8 2 53 u.u 3.2 South Dakota 6.2 250 1.7 1.9 Tennessee 9.3 58 7.5 5.6 Texas 8.1 45 11.1 8.3 Utah fl.3 250 1.6 1.8 Vermont 5.0 zuu 2.1 1.8 Virginia 16.6 106 8.2 7.u Washington 18.5 180 7.7 6.5 west Virginia 6.8 88 3.7 3.u Wisconsin 31.2 20h 12.6 11.? Wyoming 2.2 250 .H .7 TOTAL 800.0 97(avg.) 387.0 350.0 CRS- 7 IB80024 UPDATEfDQ/23/80 Adninietratien-2292;-§el_£2r.L2ng:Iern-A§i§.ten..s- 9 IB8002ll UPDATE-01%/23/80 benefits would have to be scaled so that they are greatest for those with the highest home energy costs in relation to income. --- Benefits would be provided to meet costs of energy sources used primarily for home heating. However, grants to meet cooling costs would be allowed when cooling is determined to be medically necessary for the eligible household. --- Energy suppliers participating in providing assistance would have to agree to various conditions, including notice and delay requirements, before stopping service to eligible households, except in cases where the requirements would result.in undue hardship on the supplier. —-- States would have to»maintain existing public assistance benefits, except that assistance under this program could replace any public assistance increases that had been made solely to provide energy assistance. ——— States could reserve up to 3% of their grant for emergencies. The Home Energy Assistance Act allocates funding among the 50 states and the District of Columbia (95% of the appropriation) according to five different formulas, using as factors: aggregate residential energy expenditures in each State; each State's share of the eligible population; severity of climate in each State; each State's share of the population below 125% of the “poverty levels;" and a requirement that sufficient funding be provided each State to ensure that at least $120 will be available for each household receiving cash welfare or food stamps. (See later discussion of rmula allcoation issues for greater detail.) Table 2 presents the most current estimate of State-by-State block grants under the Home Energy Assistance Act formula if the full $3.115 billion authorized is made available in FY81. As reference points, it also presents estimates of each State's percentage share of aggregate home energy expenditures and its proportion of households with incomes below the income eligibility standards. It must be emphasized that this table is not to be taken as the final allocation of funding among the States since, by the time the program is implemented, more recent and refined data could be available, and, most important, better data on aggregate residential energy expenditures. CRS- 10 IB800 24 UPDATE-0 4/23/80 TABLE 2. Home Energy Assistance Act Percent Percent ---- State shares --- of total of incane Dollars Percent home energy eligible ..--§'222e ...... .....Ini.1.J...i.2.1;§)...-...-22;:9.t_a;._.....ez2end_i:c.2r:~2§__..1;9..t;s..sh.c2;.<1§- Alabama $34.9 1.19 1.65 2.23 Alaska 13.4 .46 .20 .14 Arizona 17.0 .58 .96 1.15 Arkansas 22.5 .77 .99 1.48 California 183.8 6.30 5.79 9.97 Colorado 41.9 1.44 .87 1.05 Connecticut 51.2 1.75 1.94 1.11 Delaware 6.8 .23 .31 .19 Dist. of Columbia 8.3 .28 .26 .40 Florida 58.8 2.02 3.34 4.49 Georgia 41.2 1.40 1.73 2.79 Hawaii 4.3 .15 .22 .37 Idaho 17.0 .58 .42 .41 Illinois 181.6 6.22 6.43 4.31 Indiana 82.2 2.82 2.95 2.17 Iowa 52.5 1.80 1.44 1.20 Kansasu 27.5 .94 1.01 .97 Kentucky 45.6 1.56 1.54 2.05 Louisiana 36.6 1.25 1.48 2.17 Maine 31.5 1.08 .73 .57 Maryland 43.0 1.47 1.88 1.26 Massachusetts 106.3 3.64 3.63 2.45 Michigan 155.9 5.34 4.32 3.62 Minnesota 101.5 3.48 2.16 1.62 Mississippi 30.2 1.04 1.00 1.72 Missouri 73.6 2.52 2.28 2.59 Montana 17.8 .61 .30 .35 Nebraska 25.7 .88 .69 .69 Nevada 6.5 .22 .27 .25 New Hampshire 20.0 .69 .57 ' .37 New Jersey 103.6 3.55 4.08 2.67 New Mexico 16.2 .56 .40 .70 New York 322.5 11.05 10.39 8.74 North Carolina 55.8 1.91 2.60 2.99 North Dakota 18.3 .63 .28 .28 Ohio 160.6 5.51 5.57 4.27 Oklahoma 27.7 .95 1.19 1.56 Oregon 29.4 1.01 .83 1.06 CR5-11 IB80024 UPDATE-04/23/80 TABLE 2 . (continued) Home Energy Assistance Act Percent Percent ----- state shares ---- of total of income Dollars Percent home energy eligible ---§1.=a.t2 ...... .._..¢ni.1.;l.i9n§)...........<.>.Lia.2..te.1-....§z2ep.Q:c.I;re§....h92§:e.h2;.<1§- Pennsylvania 196.6 6.74 6.30 5.68 Rhode Island 17.9 .62 .62 .46 South Carolina 25.8 .88 1.38 1.41 South Dakota 16.7 .57 .33 .36 Tennessee 47.2 1.62 1.95 2.42 Texas 83.0 2.85 4.89 6.23 Utah 19.3 .66 .41 .54 Vermont 13.5 .46 .29 .26 Virginia 54.4 1.86 2.42 1.93 Washington 42.6 1.46 1.07 1.46 West Virginia 28x) .96 .84 1.00 Wisconsin 92.3 3.16 2.65 1.67 Wyoming 7.5 .26 .13. .16 TOTAL 2,918.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 CRS-12 IBBOOZ’-5 UPDATE-O4/23/80 Qthg;_§gng;g§§;Qna;_g;gpQ§al§. The only other proposal for low-income energy assistance that has received substantial congressional considerati is the Senate Finance Committee proposal originally included in the senate-reported version of the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act (H.R. 3919). a The Home Energy Assistance Act has been accepted in place of this proposal. The senate Finance Committee proposal would provide $3 billion annually for a program of direct;payment of standardized benefits to recipients of AFDC, SSI, or food stamps; States could also opt to take all or part of the money provided them and operate a program of their own design. Half the available funding would be distributed among the States according to their share of total energy expenditures among low-income households -- residential and non—residential expenditures by households with incomes below 125% of the F "poverty levels." The other half would be distributed according to severity of climate, adjusted by the State's share of low—income households. States would be assured sufficient funding to guarantee each SSI, AFDC, and food stamp household a minimum of $120 annually. Once the State's allocation was established, HEW would set standardized payment amounts for SSI, AFDC, and food stamp households in the State by dividing the allocation among recipient a households, with variations only for single vs. multi-person households. These standardized payments would be made by HEW (for SSI recipients) and by the States (for AFDC and foul stamp recipients). However, each state would be allowed the option of designing its own program and using all or part of its allocation to fund that program. Up to 10% of the money provided could be used for administrative costs. There have also been a number of proposals related to the Food Sta Program. Several would establish separate fuel or energy stamp programs patterned after the Food Stamp Program, often using its eligible population and administrative mechanism as their own for simplicity and administrative ease. Others have proposed special add-ons to food stamp benefits, in the form of cash, more food stamps, or fuel stamps. These proposals have included both simple, standard benefit designs and relatively complex efforts to make up the difference between an eligible household's home energy costs and the income it has available to pay them, in the manner in which food stamps attempts to fill the gap between.food costs and income households have available to pay for food. A third type of proposal has suggested the establishment of a new Federal/State entitlement program that would provide benefits through home energy suppliers, with special provisions for renters; these are the so-called "vendor-line-of-credit” proposals. Typically, they have Fused existing cash welfare and food stamp eligible populations and administrative mechanisms to determine eligibility for aid, and have provided aid by paying home energy suppliers the amount necessary to reduce heating bills by percentages that vary with the eligible households’ income. other proposals include (1) allowing energy providers tax credits for the cost of reducing home energy bills to eligible households; (2) providing special cash grants to cash welfare or cash welfare and food stamp households; (3) increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in conbinati 1 with other approaches for assisting those not touched by the EITC; and ( ; providing reimbursable and non-reimbursable income tax credits tied to heating fuel expenditures, such as the proposal incorporated in H.R. 3919 but not approved by the House/Senate conferees. ggnggggsigngl gropgsalg. A number of proposals from sources outside CBS-13 IB80024 UPDATE-OH/23/80 "9 Congress and the Administration have also gained some currency. The earliest, recommended by the Department of Energy's Fuel Oil Marketing . 7 ‘visory Committee (FOHAC) , with a cost estimate of about $3.2 billion, is very similar to the "vendor-line-of—credit" proposals introduced in Congress- The FOMAC report recommended an eligible population of those with annual incomes below 125% of the "poverty levels" (15076 for the elderly) 1’ approximately 16 million households. It also suggested that benefits be granted to income eligible households whose home energy expenditures represent more than 10% of annual income. Benefits would be provided through home energy suppliers (with special provisions for renters) by use of a "line-of-credit" established with the recipients‘ energy suppliers ("vendors"), and they would vary with income and home energy expenditures. other proposals have advanced the concept of a package of changes in existing programs. Cash supplements, varied by the relationship of State energy expenditures to the national average, could be provided to AFDC, SSI, and food stamp recipients; the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could be expanded to grant some assistance to thouseholds not qualifying_ for cash welfare or food stamps; and existing CSA energy crisis assistance efforts could be continued for those in emergency need. Still other proposals have presented options including (1) expanding the existing CSA crisis assistance program; (2) providing state-specific benefits only to offset recent price increases, rather than subsidizing an eligible household's entire home energy bill; and (3) providing energy allowances to cover all home energy costs to eligible households above a given percent of income. If-.5.§9..§ I_3_a1_:_ga__rk;n__g__;1'*g_n_d_§. In taking action approving H.R. 3919, incorporating an amended Home Energy Assistance Act, the House/senate conferees decided to "earmark" 25% of the revenues from the "windfall profit" tax for low-income assistance. In addition, they stated their intention that, up to the point that actual revenues match projected revenues ($228 billion over 10 years), half of the 25% share for low—income assistance should be available for the kind of aid envisioned in the Home Energy Assistance Act, and half should be available for aid to welfare recipients ($28.5 billion each, over 10 years)- If actual revenues exceed projections, it was decided that the share that should be used for low-income assistance would be increased to one-third; however, no specific division of funds was stipulated. Since no trust fund is set up by H.R. 3919 from which "earmarked" funds could be paid out, actual funding of energy assistance and other low-income aid will be up to annual appropriation and authorization action by the Congress. The "earmarking" represents only a statement of intent by Congress and is not binding in the sense of actually making funds available in the manner set forth above. However, "earmarking" of funds for low-income assistance and, within that, for energy-related aid vs. other low—income aid, has created a situation , are, in the future, claims for funding of energy assistance and welfare programs are virtually certain to be made -— citing the intent expressed in the "windfall profit" tax measure. §g§_i__g__Br_ggr_gm___Qg§_i_gp_. There were at least three differing perspectives on what the basic program design should be. Of course, mixtures of the CBS-14 IB8002u UPDATE-on/23/80 different approaches were also proposed. The essential difference between the plans might be characterized as +'a degree to which they were oriented along the traditional lines followed .n welfare legislation. some were explicitly non—welfare in their design; others attempted to add.on to or tie into the existing welfare system. The approach represented.by the Home Energy Assistance Act is the least "welfare-oriented" of existing proposals. It uses block grants to States and specifies an eligible population that goes well beyond the traditional welfare population. The Home Energy Assistance Act also differs from a welfare approach to providing needs-based assistance because it emphasizes (paying suppliers of home energy rather than providing direct cash or in-kind assistance. Further, it does not spell out, in Federal legislation, many of the criteria for eligibility and benefit determinations that are often part of welfare legislation, such as a definition of income. This approach is most like a very much enlarged version of the existing CSA crisis assistance program (ECAP), title XX Social Services programs, or some housing assistance programs that attempt to limit the proportion of income devoted to housing. The more "welfare—omiented" approaches either (1) propose to add benefits to those already granted through the various cash and in-kind public assistance programs, with special provisions for those who, though eligible, do not participate in them, or (2) propose (to create new needs-based assistance programs following the lines of existing aid programs and using the eligible populations and administrative mechanisms of those programs to simplify and ease administration. For example, existing welfare programs can have their benefits increased or he used as the delivery (administrativ ‘ mechanism for a new type of needs-based assistance. The more "welfare-oriented" approach is represented by the senate Finance Committee's proposal, S. 1270, and by S. 1766, H.R. H799, and others. In partial recognition of the various methods of providing assistance, ‘House/Senate conferees gave broad "waiver" authority to HEW in approving the Home Energy Assistance Act. Aside from the degree to which low-income home energy assistance plans are oriented along traditional welfare lines, a number of other issues recur in designing a new assistance program for the home energy costs of low-income households. F A §g;mg;a_Al;g§g§ign. In any of the proposals that limit the amount of funding available (e.g., inon-entitlement plans such as block grants to States) or attempt to have the Federal Government vary/benefit levels across the country (e.g., the Administration's proposal), the question of what "formula" to use to allocate funding or vary benefits occurs. Specifically, the formula allocation issue tends to resolve itself into the question of how much to emphasize home heating costs over other energy costs as the program's goal, and, if so, how to do it. The extremes are represented by the formulas used to allocate this winter's funding for the thee interim programs (weighted toward colder States and high home heating costs) and the Senate » Finance Committee's proposal (weighted toward all energy costs, including gasoline, and less toward colder Sta.tes) . The formula allocation question presents two problems: (1) which factors to use and how to weight them; and (2) the availability of data. The list of formula factors proposed is long and the variations are almost in finite : CBS-15 IBBOOZH UPDATE-OQ/23/80 —— Each State's proportional share of the low-income population, those with incomes below 125% of the “poverty levels," or those with incomes below the Bureau of Labor statistics (BLS) “lower living standard budget," have been widely used as measures of income need. Use of the higher BLS measure tends to distribute money to higher standard-of-living/cost-—of-living areas, than does use of the poverty measure; it also includes several million more households. -- Each State's share of aggregate residential energy expenditures, or its share of recent increases in home heating expenditures, have been used as expenditure measures of need. when combined with income-based factors, the aim is to distribute aid to areas where expenditures are high in relation to income. This factor also takes into account the different mixes of energy sources and their prices: for example, the cost of heating in two States with identical weather can be very different when fuel oil is used in one and gas in the other. use of aggregate rather than home heating expenditures tends to distribute aid more evenly across the country. However, anomalies do appear because the particular mix of energy sources (that vary greatly in price) and other influences (such as the type of housing stock) can heavily affect the residential energy expenditures in a State -- potentially, to a point where they could outweigh factors such as weather. -— Each State's share of "heating degree days," adjusted for population (low-income population) to prevent the anomaly of very cold, but very small states getting overwhelming amounts of money, is a factor used in every allocation proposed. This indicates a significant desire to weight aid toward home heating costs. "Heating degree days" are a measure of the historical "coldness" of a State's weather, and are expressed in annual numbers. One "heating degree day" is equal to an historical Statewide average temperature 1 degree below 65 degrees Farenheit on one day; thus, a State that historically has had 100 days a year where the temperature was below 65 degrees and the Statewide average was 55 degrees on each of those days would be attributed 1000 "heating degree days” annually (100 days multiplied by 10 degrees below 65). "Heating degree days" range from 0 in Hawaii and about 700 in Florida, to over 11,000 in Alaska and some 9,500 in North Dakota. Increased weighting of "heating degree days" as a factor shifts funding (or benefits) toward colder States and can be done in a number of ways. The two most common are to increase the share of money given out by this factor or to increase the weighting of the factor by “squaring” it. Squaring "heating degree days" also has the added "advantage" of reducing the effect of the population adjustment that is made to all "heating degree day" allocation factors. -- Requirements that states or individuals be allocated a minimum amount of funding, regardless of the allocations CR5-16 IBBOOZU UPDATE—0Q/23/80 produced by using needs-based and climate measures, are alsozfound in several plans. The Administration's proposal womld grant every eligible low-income household a basic dollar amount (roughly $50) no matter where they lived; payments would then vary upward according to climate. The Home Energy Assistance Act ensures that any block grant given a State would be at least enough to grant, if the State so chose, $120 annually to every cash welfare and food stamp recipient household. The data needed to cperate allocation formulas in the area of low-income home energy assistance are very sketchy. Of all the factors used, only the "heating degree day“ measure has a firm set of numbers that are regularly collected and relatively precise. The appropriate data on the low-income population, at anything less than the national level, are collected regularly only in the decennial Census, although data are available for 1975/1976 because a special survey was conducted. The most vexing data problem is the lack of sufficient, up-to—date information on home energy expenditures, and, as a result, any formula allocation using this as a factor involves a great deal of "guesswork." " ~ The lack of data has.also led to the.inability, noted earlier, to estimate the extent of need for assistance, along with severely limiting the number of factors that can be used in distributing funding. The formula allocation that has received the most attention so far is the one used in the Home Energy Assistance Act to distribute money among the States. It was created.through a senate floor compromise, is very complx , and attempts to strike a balance among needs-based measures (expenditures and income), climate measures, and the need to assure every State a minimum allocation. Five different formulas are used to achieve this. The primary formula weights historical severity of climate and aggregate residential energy expenditures equally. Low~income population (using the BLS measure) enters the formula by being used to adjust the climate measure (“heating degree days," squared). most state allocations are determined under this V,yformula. If a State were to receive more fuding under both of two secondary formulas, its allocation would be increased to the lower of those two. One :5 of the two secondary frmmulas is heavily weighted toward colder States, by distributing 75% of the funding based on the climate measure ("heating degree days" squared as adjusted by the BLS low-income population) rather than 50% ~ as in the primary formula. The other secondary formula does not square "heating degree days" and, thus, is less weighted toward colder States than the primary formula. The result is that a few (five) states with moderate 4- climates are advantaged under both secondary formulas and have their allocations.increased. The assurance of a minimum allocation is achieved through the use of two alternate formulas that guarantee a minimum allocation of $120 for each cash welfare and food stamp household in each State. These last two alternate y» formulas increase a State's allocation (1) if the primary formula does "t provide a sufficient allocation, or (2) if another formula, counting ‘.ne low-income population differently (125% of the "poverty levels") and ?C weighting the climate neasure less heavily (not squaring "heating degree days"), does not provide a sufficient allocation. Again, only a few States are affected (nine in all); they tend to be warmer States and states with is substantial cash welfare and food stamp recipient populations. CRS-17 IB800 21! UPDATE-O4/23/80 To stay within the funding provided, the Home Energy Assistance Act rmula provides for pro rata reductions in the allocations to States that do not have their funding increased by any of the methods described above. However, certain increases, to five States, due to the minimum allocation guarantee, are funded by authorizing a separate appropriation of $115 million and, thus, do not affect the allocations of other States. As a result, according to the estimates now available, 37 States would - receive their allocation based on the primary formula and 13 States and the District of Columbia would receive theirs based on one of the secondary or alternate formulas, if the full $3.115 billion authorized for the first year were to be appropriated. .131-i9i.b.l-.§...29PBl§§i9.B:...1:‘.lE§i.!1.Q.L§.‘I§l§- As was discussed in the earlier section on "Need for Assistance," the extent of need for home energy cost aid among lower-income ‘households is relatively unknown. Because of this, existing income standards of need have been used to determine the eligible population for the proposals put forward so far and funding levels have typically been arbitrary numbers. i The eligible populations suggested so far, except for the few limited to the elderly and disabled only, have all.inc1uded cash welfare and food stamp recipients. Typically, they then add‘ to that population by setting a separate income standard. The two most often used are 125% of the "poverty levels" and the BLS "lower living standard budget" (as adjusted for household size and place of residence). The number of households eligible under these o measures ranges from about 15 to 20 million. Funding levels have ranged from $2.4 billion a year (the Administration's proposal) to as high as:$u.5 billion in some proposals. ggngfitg. The question of what type of benefit to provide and how large it should be has been left relatively vague in many proposals, and stated precisely in a very few. The types of benefits proposed have included grants of specific flat amounts that vary only by state or household size, redutions in home energy bills (e.g., "vendor-line-of-credit" plans), varying "energy stamp" payments with income and energy costs, and varying direct cash payments with income and energy costs. The size of benefits has only been addressed directly in the proposals that specify dollar amounts or attempt to set maximum benefit levels. To establish the type of benefit to be provided several issues must be addressed. The most important are: (1) Should the benefit be for heating costs or include other home energy costs; (2) What will be the effect of the type of benefit chosen on efforts to conserve energy; (3) How greatly should the benefit vary with actual income and home energy costs; and i (it) How should benefits he provided to renters who often ,do not pay their home energy costs directly. In the specific cash payment plans, the decision on these issues has been, either implicitly or explicitly, to allow use of the benefit for any purpose, CRS—18 IB80024 UPDATE-OH/23/80 to not make any explicit adjustment to conserve energy (except by setting a low payment), to not vary benefits with actual income and costs, and to provide aid to low-income renters equal to that provided other households. In the other plans, a variety of attempts have been made to limit the use of the benefit to heating costs, to encourage conservation by stipulating a contribution by the recipient household, to vary benefits according to income and actual costs, and to make special arrangements for low~income renters to allow them assistance comparable to that provided others. However, each step moving away from specific standard dollar payments without regard to actual costs has led to an increase in the administrative complexity of the plan being proposed and the delivery mechanism used. Perhaps the most complex proposals, although these are also the proposals that most directly provide aid related to actual need, are those that set up "vendor-line-of-credit" systems of aid that key each household's aid to its actual costs. The simplest are those, like the Administration's proposal, that make standard dollar grants that vary only by State and size of household. 0 The basic issue in the area of benefits has been to what degree should the "sensitivity" of benefits to actual need be sacrificed by moving away from administrative complexity and toward simple, standard payments. In some proposals, the resolution of this issue has been left to the States, as in the Home Energy Assistance Act. 1gx_g;gdit§. A number of proposals for low-income home energy assista; 3 have also included promisions for income tax credits for home heating expenses. In addition, expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has been suggested as a way of generally increasing assistance to those with low incomes so that they might have more income available for home energy costs. The Senate version of EuR.3919, the "Windfall profit" tax measure, included a non-refundable income tax credit for home heating expenditures that would grant all households a $30 tax credit regardless of actual home heating expenditures and allow a tax credit for a portion of home heating expenditures established by the degree to which those expenditures exceed the general inflation rate. Eligibility for this credit would have extended up to incomes of $22,000. As a mechanism for providing aid to low-income households, tax credits pose a number of problems. The aid typically cannot be provided at the time the cost is incurred and, except for the EITC (not tied to home energy expenses), tax credits would not reach a large portion of the low-income population. However, as a way to provide some assistance to lower-middle and E middle—income households without drastically extending the tscope of any low—income aid program, assisting some of those who might not be willing to participate in a low—incone assistance program, and easing the transition between the population eligible for direct aid and those not eligible, tax credits have offered a viable alternative to some. gggin;§t;atiyg_I§§g§§. A number of administrative issues have been rai' d by the various low-income energy assistance proposals. The agency or agencies that will administer any proposal at the state and local level have not been identified in many plans, leaving it to the States to decide. Where they have been identified, it has only been in relation to the relatively simple standard payment proposals and has usually been the welfare agency. — This has raised the concern that existing welfare and social services cRs- 19 13300 22: upnurn-o u/23/so agencies may not be able to cope with a brand new type of assistance, even the simple direct payment type, and the large number of new clients likely to 7 ply, especially in the few winter months. F 7 Most of the proposals provide for administrative costs at about 10% of benefits. However, given what are likely to be relatively small benefits (in comparison to existing welfare programs) and the large number of potential recipients, this administrative cost percentage may prove to be too small unless a substantial amount of the administrative workload is absorbed by existing welfare systems. LT_3§.l§.I.—.§.I.1.9.E P.L. 96-126 (H.R. H930) In addition to providing FY80 Interior Department appropriations, amended to include $1.35 billion in funding for low-income energy assistance programs during the 1979/1980 winter. when coupled with a regular appropriation of $250 million for this purpose, provides a total of $1.6 billion for low-income energy assistance in FY80. Amended on senate floor , Oct. 16, 1979, to provide $1.2 billion. In conference, Nov. 7, 1979, the sum of $1.35 billion was decided upon. Conference agreement passed House and Senate Nov. 9, 1979. Zme House had earlier approved H.J.Res. H30, providing $1.35 billion for low—income energy assistance. Enacted into law Nov. 27,. 1979. 12.1.. 96-223 (H.R. 3919) The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act. As amended in the Senate, and in conference, provides for a Home Energy Assistance program. The Home Energy Assistance Act (S. 172a) was amended and added to H.R. 3919 on the Senate floor, as a substitute for the low-incrme energy assistance provisions in H.R- 3919 reported by the Senate Finance Cbmnittee. Introduced May 3, 1979; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. Reported, amended, June 22 (H.Eept- 96-30H). Passed House, amended, June 28, Referred in Senate to Committee on Finance July 10. Reported, amended, Nov. 1 (S.Rept. 96-394). Passed Senate, amended, Dec. 17, 1979. Conference agreement reached Feb. 26, 1980 (H.Rept. 96-817). Enacted as P.L. 96-223 Apr. 2, 1980. H.R . 32 1 (Fish) Energy Stamp Assistance Act. Provides energy stamps valued at between $25 and $50 monthly for purchase of home energy products, or to pay a portion of monthly rent where fuel bills are not paid directly. Makes eligible households with annual gross incomes below $12,500. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979: referred to Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H.R. 762 (Stokes) Proposes a Federal Utility and Energy Low.Income Subsidy Program that would provide assistance to recipients of food stamps, AFDC, and SSI, along with those with incomes below 200% of the "poverty levels." Provides benefits through bill reductions of varying percentages, with suppliers I .mbursed for the cost of any reductions by the Federal Government. Provides benefits applicable to most home energy and utility costs. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Interstate) and Foreign Commerce. H.R. 4799 (Downey) CBS-20 IB8002fl UPDATE-OH/23/80 Proposes a basic fuel assistance program, with benefits provided through home energy suppliers, similar to that proposed in S. 1270. Introduced Jr,‘ 16, 1979; referred to more than one committee. 3.3. 5039 (sabo) Proposes a fuel stamp program to provide assistance to food stamp recipients, for the period December through March of each year. Provides that eligible households would receive, in fuel stamps, a monthly equivalent of their food stamp allotment, except that the minimum benefit would be $20 a month and the maximum would be $50. Proposes that stamps could be used to pay directly for home heating fuels or to pay a portion of rent. Introduced July 31, 1979; referred.to more than one committee. ” H.B. 5237 (Peyser) Proposes a fuel stamp program to provide assistance to recipients of food stamps, for the period December through March of each year. Provides that eligible households would receive, in fuel stamps, a monthly amount equivalent to their fuel costs, up to a maximum of $75 a month. Proposes that fuel stamps could be used to pay directly for home heating fuels or to pay a portion of rent. Introduced Sept. 11, 1979; referred to more than one . committee. H.R. SZH1 (Shannon, Moffett) Establishes a fuel.assistance program for households with incomes less than 125% of the "poverty levels" (up to 150% for elderly households) and 1 households. Also provides for a Middle-Income Energy Tax Credit. Proposes that fuel assistance benefits would be provided through home energy suppliers (reduced bills) as proposed in S. 1270 and H.R. a799, except that benefits would be capped at $30 a month, and would be limited to States where weather patterns, energy costs, and other factors indicate a program is warranted. a Introduced Sept. 11, 1979; referred to more than one committee. H.R. 5265 (Richmond et al.) Proposes to increase food stamp monthly allotments during the heating sesson by the degree to which fuel oil prices have risen. would be operative in colder States only. Introduced Sept. 13, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 5318 (Coughlin) Provides for a tax credit for home hating oil expenses. Introduced Sept. 18, 1979; referred to Committee on Ways:and Means. H.R. 5552 (Simon) Home Energy Assistance Act. Identical to S. 172a, as originally introduced in the senate. Establishes a program of block grants to States to operate State-designed programs of low-income home energy assistance, undar general Federal guidelines. Introduced Oct. 11, 1979; referred to Commit .e on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H.R. 5678 (ncflugh) Home Energy Tax Relief Act. Provides a tax credit for low and CBS-21 IBBO024 UPDATE-04/23/80 middle-income taxpayers for amounts paid for primary fuels used in their principal residences. Establishes a program under which the Treasury will re advance payments of such credit to fuel suppliers. Introduced Oct. 23, 1979; referred to more than one committee. H.J.Res. H27 (Natcher) See H.J.Res. H30. H.J.Res . U30 (Natcher) Provides for urgent supplemental appropriations for low-income energy assistance during the winter of 1979/1980. Appropriates $1.35 billion. Introduced Oct. 23, 1979; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported Oct. 2a, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-SS2, Pts. 1 and 2). Passed House, amended, Oct. A25. This appropriation.vas incorporated in P.L. 96-126. S. 722 (Durkin) Provides for refundable tax credits for home heating oil expenditures, including a credit for renters. Limits credit to $200 and extends eligibility to incomes of $35,000. Introduced Mar. 21, 1979; referred to Committee on Finance. ‘ S. 771 (Weicker) Energy stamp Act of 1979. Establishs an Energy Stamp Program, patterned a ter the Food Stamp Program, to be administered through the Community Services Administration and local community action agencies. Benefits and, to some extent, eligibility to be determined locally. Recipients to pay one—third of the value of any stamps received. Authorizes appropriations of $100 million annually. Introduced Mar. 27, 1979; referred to Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Provisions of measure incorporated into 5. 172a ordered to be reported Oct. 19, 1979. S. 1270 (Javits, Jackson) Basic Fuel Assistance Act of 1979. Establishes a program of assistance for households eligible for SSI, AFDC, or food stamps and continues crises intervention programs. Provides benefits in the form of reduced bills for primary residential energy sources, with suppliers paid the cost of reduced bills. Requires recipient households to pay a proportion of their income; the program would pay the remainder of the bill. Caps benefits at $us per household per month in the first year; in later years HEW would set benefit ceilings. Provides open-ended appropriations for the basic benefit program; authorizes $uo million annually for crisis intervention activities. Introduced June 4, 1979; referred to Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Provisions of neasure incorporated intrss. 1724 ordered to be reported Oct- 19, 1979. S. 1331 (Biden) Emergency Fuel Assistance Act of 1979. Authorizes a fuel stamp’ program in; elderly households in areas found to have an "energy emergency." Provides that Federal Emergency Management Administration would administer the program through state welfare offices. Authorizes annual appropriations of $150 million. Introduced June 13, 1979; referred to Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Provisions of measure incorporated into 5. 172a ordered to be reported Oct. 19, 1979. CRS22 IB8002fl UPDATEFOQ/23/80 S. 1603 (Mathias, Baker) Home-Heating Stamp Act of 1979. Establishes a home—heating stamp program patterned after the Food Stamp Program. Makes food stamp households eligible for home—heating stamp allotments during a state's heating season. stipulates that food stamp households must pay a percentage of income to the issuing agency in order to receive an allotment. Provides that the Department of Agriculture, operating the program in conjunction with food stamps, could waive thenrequirement to purchase allotments. Provides that allotments be adequate for minimum heating needs. Provides for open-ended _ appropriations. Introduced July 31, 1979; referred to Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Provisions of measure.incorporated into S. 1724 ordered to be reported Oct. 19, 1979. S. 1633 (Heinz) As revised during consideration in the Senate Finance Committee, provides that suppliers of home heating energy would be eligible for a refundable (tax credit equal to the revenue foregone in reducing home heating costs to low-income households. Incorporated as a State option in 5. 172a. Introduced Aug. 2, 1979. C S. 1664 (Ribicoff et al.) Provides for a tax credit for residential heating oil expenditures. , Similar provisions included in Senate version of H.R. 3919. Introduced Ann. 2, 1979, referred to Committee on Finance. 5. 1729 (Williams) [Incorporated in H.R. 3919] Home Energy Assistance Act. Establishes a program of block grants to States to operate State-designed programs of low-income home energy assistance, under general Federal guidelines. Authorizes $3.025 billion in 5$ FY81, and $8.025 billion in FY82 and FY83. Similar provisions included in S- 1725. Reported from the Labor and Human Resources Committee Oct. 25, 1979- Amended version incorporated in H.R. 3919 Nov. 15, 1979. S. 1766 (noynihan) Energy Cost Assistance Act. Provides for standard cash payments for AFDC and S51 households in the form of grants to States (for AFDC recipients) and standard add-ons to Federal SSI checks. Provides that standard payment would be $200 annually, adjusted in later years by the extent to which home heating price increases exceed the general inflation rate. Also includes tax credits for home heating expenditures similar to provisions included) in Senate version of H.R. 3919. Introduced Sept. 19, 1979; referred to Committee on Finance. E§1.1iQF.QL.Q§l_QZ-EY.E.1.‘l'.I'.§ O3/07/80 —- Conference report on H.R. 3919 filed (H.Rept. 96-817). O2/26/80 —- House/Senate conferees reached agreement on H.R. 3919, including amended provisions for a Home Energy Assistance Act. 12/17/79 -- senate approved H.R. 3919, the Crude Oil Windfall 11/13-15/79 11/09/79 11/01/79 10/25/79 10/25/79 10/16/79 09/12/79 Oli/O5/7 9 CR5-23 IB8002lI UPDATE-0!-I/23/80 Profit Tax, Act, as amended to include the Home Energy Assistance Act. —- Senate debated and approved, with amendments, the Home Energy Assistance Act (5. 1724). The measure was incorporated as part of H.R. 3919, the "windfall profit" tax measure. House and Senate approved conference report on H.R. 11930 that, when signed by the President as P.L. 96-126, provided $1.35 billion for low—income energy assistance in FY80. P.L. 96-128 provided $250 million for this purpose, making a total of $1.6 billion available in FY80. senate Finance Committee reported H.R. 3919, s.Rept. 96-391$, the Crude Oil windfall Profit Tax Act, including provisitms for low-income energy assistance. House approved H.J.Res. 430, providing $1.35 billion for low—income energy assistance in FY80. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee reported 5. 1720, the Home Energy Assistance Act, S.Rept. 96-378. Senate approved an amendment to H.R. 4930, making $1.2 billion available for low—incone energy assistance in FY80. (Amendment No. 651, Javits) Administration announced its proposal for a low-—income energy assistance program. Administration announced oil price decontrol and proposed a "windfall profit" tax. In the initial announcement, $800 million of the tax was to be used for low-income energy assistance, annually. This was later raised to»$1.6 billion in the first year, and $2.0 billion in later years. A2Dl.'1.'l9.!-‘lAL..B.EE.EE.1iQE.-§......0UR§.§§. (see also Committee Reports noted in the Chronology) Energy assistance programs and States a final report to the Ohio Cleveland, Studies, Hoffman, Wayne Lee. choices relevant to design of future programs. pricing policies in the fifty disabled, or low-income households: Energy Credits Advisory Committee. University, Institute of Urban 390 pp. to benefit elderly, Cleveland S tate College of Urban Affairs, March 1979. Providing energy assistance to the poor: A working paper (1197—8, revised) prepared at the Urban Institute, Washington, Octover 1979. 62 pp. Joe, Tom, Richard Nathan, and Cheryl Rogers. Low-income energy assistance program. A paper prepared at the _ :2; :.;;;__£)—‘.u“_-KL“ H £5 §Mww~” I4 “I! I5: Q {jar} uh‘ .2 Ti, 15:‘. N 'x:..g3,u,_V'_‘_)> _ V 1 —‘~ —4 '* - "»:—=.&_ V ‘t“2'fiU!_ws CB ‘V"‘:"—‘Y,:‘\\-_ CRS—24 IBBOOZQ UPDATE-04/23/80 University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration, Center for the [Study of welfare Policy. Washington, Congressiona1Budget Office. The decontrol of domestic oil prices: an overview. [Washington] May 1979. 75 pp. Dept. of Energy. ‘Fuel Oil Marketing Advisory Committee (FOHAC). Final report: Low-income energy assistance: a profile of need and policy options. [Washington] March 1979. 39!! pp. General Accounting Office. Meeting winter heating bills for needy families: how should the Federal program work? Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. [Washington] Apr. 26, 1979. (HRD-79-12) L11 PP- Library of Congress. Congressional Research service. Low-income energy cost assistnace: FY1980. A kit prepared by Joe Richardson. Dec. 20, 1979. Washington, 1979. 34 pp. ‘tn: J. n 5illLat1«P3ll1.! _ug‘tJL_ E §GTOm 5'1; . ¢:a;:>.:.> .s f. mo. ..';~:.-tvzuu V1-\:. -