U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–722 PDF 2008

LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM: OVERVIEW AND CURRENT ISSUES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY 

FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 13, 2007

Serial No. 110–72

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York, Chairwoman

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on November 13, 2007 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities, Committee on Education and Labor ..................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Letter from Nassau County Department of Senior Citizens Affairs, 

Nov. 2007 ................................................................................................ 79

Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee 

on Healthy Families and Communities, Committee on Education and 

Labor .............................................................................................................. 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses: 

Barlow, Linda, vice-president of community alternative programs, Education and Assistance Corp. ......................................................................... 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Caruso, Guy, Administrator, Energy Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Energy .................................................................................. 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Manning, David, executive vice president, U.S. external affairs, National 

Grid, on behalf of the American Gas Association ....................................... 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43

AGA Energy Analysis, Sept. 26, 2007 ..................................................... 48

Swanson, Lawrence A., executive director, ACTION-Housing Inc. .............. 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39

Wolfe, Mark, executive director, National Energy Assistance Directors 

Association ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22

(1)

LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM: OVERVIEW AND CURRENT ISSUES 

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:05 p.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn McCarthy 

[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCarthy, Clarke, Sarbanes, Platts, 

and McKeon. 

Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alfred Amato, Legislative Fellow for Education; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Deborah Koolbeck, 

Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities; Danielle Lee, Press-Outreach Assistant; Joe Novotny, Chief 

Clerk; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, Education; Chad Miller, 

Minority Professional Staff; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority 

Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY [presiding]. A quorum is present. The 

hearing of the subcommittee will now come to order. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing which will be made part of the permanent record. 

Before we begin, I would like everyone to take a moment to ensure that your cell phones and BlackBerrys are off. My BlackBerry 

is off. Last time, I did not do it. 

I now recognize myself followed by the ranking member, Buck 

McKeon from California, for his opening statement. 

I want to thank everyone here for coming. 

We will be discussing a very serious issue facing our low-income 

families. With energy costs consistently on the rise, more and more 

families must make the tough decision on whether to heat their 

homes or put food on the table. 

This morning, I met with a group from Island Harvest, which 

feeds our poor on the island. I know everybody thinks Long Islanders are very wealthy people, but we have a large population of 

homeless, and besides our veterans, we have more and more people 

who are homeless today. 

2

I think that concerns me the most, is the children. If they cannot 

afford to have heat in their homes, that means they most likely do 

not have food on their plates, and I think that is something, speaking as a nurse—no heat, no food—we are going to end up seeing 

these children and our elderly and our disabled in hospitals, which 

is going to end up costing more money. This is a decision that no 

one should ever be forced to make. 

Unfortunately, heating costs will only increase as we enter into the winter months. Oil is trading at nearly $100 per barrel, even 

though in the last couple of days we have seen it come down, but 

it is fluctuating. And the prices of other heating sources, such as 

natural gas, propane and electricity, have all increased by record 

number, according to the Energy Information Administration. 

These increased costs make it extremely difficult for low-income 

families to heat their homes, placing their families and loved ones 

in harm’s way. 

That is why the federal government created the Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. This great program 

has been helping low-income families heat their homes since 1981. 

Currently, over 5 million households receive LIHEAP assistance. 

That is people that are receiving the assistance. Those that do not 

even apply are probably making the numbers even larger. 

Just last week, the House passed language in the Labor-HHS ap- propriations bill to provide $2.4 billion for the LIHEAP program. 

Unfortunately, we saw President Bush veto this vital legislation 

just today, placing the health and wellbeing of millions of families 

at risk this winter. 

Studies have shown that the energy burden on low-income families is much higher than wealthier families. According to the American Gas Association and the Department of Health and Human 

Services, low-income families spend nearly 20 percent of their income on heating and cooling costs, compared to 7 percent for standard households. It is clear our nation’s low-income families spend 

a much greater portion of their income on heating and cooling 

costs, and they deserve and need assistance from the federal government. 

There are things that can be done to reduce the monthly energy 

bills at home. To be very honest with you, this morning, before I 

flew down here, I pulled out every single plug in my house—every 

single plug. I turn the TVs off. I turn my computer off. I pull everything out. And the house right now is set at 54 degrees. And let 

us hope my pipes do not burst. 

But I have been doing this for a number of years. Being that I 

am not there for 5 days a week, I figure I can cut down on energy 

just doing my small part. But I am not there. What happens to the 

families that are living there and have the high costs? 

I also check to make sure I have not left any lights on that are 

not being used and turn my heat off when I am not at home. And 

I guess I grew up—you know, my mom and dad went through the 

depression years—and when you walk through a room, you turn 

the light off. I was taught that as a child. I think a lot of people 

have forgotten that. 

And we also must also work to develop clean and renewable and 

cost-efficient fuel to put an end to the energy crunch in this nation. 

3

We will hear from a panel of experts today who will offer their 

views on the LIHEAP program and provide this subcommittee with 

ideas and suggestions to improve the delivery of this program. 

I now want to yield to Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania. 

[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Thank you all for coming today. We will be discussing a very serious issue facing 

our low income families. 

With energy costs consistently on the rise, more and more families must make the 

tough decision whether to heat their homes, or put food on the table. 

That is a decision no one should ever be forced to make. 

Unfortunately, heating costs will only increase as we enter into the winter 

months. 

Oil is trading at nearly one hundred dollars per barrel. 

And the prices of other heating sources, such as natural gas, propane and electricity have all increased by record number, according to the Energy Information 

Administration. 

These increased costs make it extremely difficult for low income families to heat 

their homes, placing their families and loved one in harms way. 

That is why the Federal government created the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. 

This great program has been helping low income families heat their homes since 

1981. 

Currently, over five million households receive LIHEAP assistance. 

Just last week, the House passed language in the Labor—HHS Appropriations bill 

to provide 2.4 billion dollars for the LIHEAP program. 

Unfortunately, President Bush vetoed this vital legislation just today, placing the 

health and well being of millions of families at risk this winter. 

Studies have shown that the energy burden of low income families is much higher 

than wealthier families. 

According to the American Gas Association and the Department of Health and 

Human Services, low income families spend nearly twenty percent of their income 

on heating and cooling costs, compared to seven percent for standard households. 

It is clear our nation’s low income families spend a much greater portion of their 

income on heating and cooling costs, and they deserve and need assistance from the 

Federal government. 

There are things that can be done to reduce the monthly energy bills at home. 

I make sure to unplug my appliances at my home in New York before I travel 

to Washington each week. 

I also check to make sure I have not left lights on that are not being used, and 

turn my heat off when I am not at home. 

There are many things that can be done to reduce home heating costs, and this 

Subcommittee is committed to improving the LIHEAP program. 

But we must also work to development clean, renewable and cost efficient fuel to 

put an end to the energy crunch in this nation. 

We will hear from a panel of experts today who will offer their views of the 

LIHEAP program, and provide this Subcommittee with ideas and suggestions to improve the delivery of this proven program. 

Mr. PLATTS. We are playing musical chairs over here, Madam 

Chair. 

Thank you. I am delighted to join with you and our witnesses 

here today and will tell you, as a parent of a third-grader and fifthgrader, we parents are still out there trying to get our kids to turn 

those lights out as they leave the rooms and go to another part of 

the house or go out to play. 

Good afternoon. I am delighted to be here. I apologize for my late 

arrival coming right from my district, but I am delighted to be part 

of this hearing. 

4

And, Madam Chair, I want to thank you for hosting this very important hearing on a topic that is critically important to, as you 

stated, millions of our citizens and their families across this country. 

I appreciate everyone’s interest in this topic, and coming from a 

northeastern state, Pennsylvania, the winter months approaching 

certainly are trying times for a lot of our citizens. Hundreds of 

thousands of Pennsylvanians this year, along with the more than 

5 million you referenced across this country, will look to LIHEAP 

for assistance as we go into the winter months. 

And I can tell you in my district, as a Congressman and previously as a state representative, the LIHEAP program is one that 

I certainly have been very aware of and often engaged in with citizens on trying to make sure that they knew of this important program and were able to acquire assistance from it. 

While I am certainly grateful for all of our witnesses and want 

to thank each and every one of you for being here, I, as a Pennsylvanian, am especially looking forward to, Mr. Swanson, your testimony and your work back in Pennsylvania, my home state. 

The rising costs of energy, as was referenced by the Chair, especially with the price of oil where it is today, is more and more challenging for so many families across the country, and while I believe 

it is vitally important that we rein in energy costs and decrease our 

consumption of foreign energy, we must not forget these citizens 

who are oftentimes having to choose between heating—or in summer in the southern states, cooling—their homes and putting food 

on the table or meeting other necessary expenses. 

And I think that is why this hearing is so important, and as 

great a nation, a wealthy nation, as we are, we should not have 

citizens having to make those very difficult decisions for themselves or their families. 

With the LIHEAP program up for reauthorization this year, I 

certainly stand ready to work with you, Madam Chair, and with 

our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve this critically 

important program, and the testimonies we are going to hear today 

I know will help further educate us and further this effort and this 

cause of making sure we do right by all of our fellow citizens. 

So, with that, I yield back, and I look forward to our testimonies. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The statement of Mr. Platts follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Good afternoon. Welcome to this hearing on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). I appreciate and share the Chairwoman’s interest in this 

important issue. With the winter months approaching, this hearing is especially 

timely. 

Hundreds of thousands of low-income Pennsylvanians are able to take advantage 

of LIHEAP assistance during the winter months. I hear regularly from constituents 

regarding the important role which this program plays in their lives. I look forward 

to hearing from Mr. Swanson regarding his personal experience working with the 

LIHEAP program in Pennsylvania. 

The rising cost of energy has become increasingly burdensome to individuals and 

businesses alike. While I believe that it is vitally important that we reign in energy 

costs and decrease our consumption of foreign energy, we must not forgot those citizens who must choose between heating or cooling their homes during times of severe temperatures or buying groceries for their families. 

5

The LIHEAP program is up for reauthorization this year. I stand ready to work 

with Chairwoman McCarthy to improve this important program. The testimonies of 

the distinguished panel before us today will greatly enhance our understanding of 

the issues surrounding the program and help us to focus our efforts where they are 

most needed. 

Thank you to all of the panelists for joining us today. With that, I yield back to 

the Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Platts. 

I know that there are only a few of us here. For the Democrats, 

we have a caucus off the Hill, so a lot of our colleagues are not 

here, and a lot of people are traveling from the West Coast. We do 

not have votes until 6:30, so a lot of people do not get here until 

much later in the afternoon. 

Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

Today, we will hear from a panel of witnesses, and I do appreciate you all being here. Your testimonies will proceed in the order 

of your introduction. 

Our first witness is Hon. Guy Caruso, the administrator for the 

U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration, known as 

EIA. The EIA is the energy within the DOE, the Department of 

Energy, which will provide policy independent data, forecasts and 

analysis regarding energy. Mr. Caruso has more than 30 years experience in the economic study of energy, with particular emphasis 

on topics related to energy markets, policy and security. Today, Mr. 

Caruso will share with us the EIA’s short-term energy forecast and 

why oil prices are so high. 

We look forward to your presentation and interpretations. 

Next, we will hear from Mark Wolfe, the executive director of the 

National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association. This association 

represents the state directors of LIHEAP programs. Prior to his 

current position, Mr. Wolfe has served at the U.S. Treasury as well 

as at our own Congressional Research Service. Today, Mr. Wolfe 

will present an overview of the LIHEAP program and discuss the 

current state of affairs, given the energy forecast that Mr. Caruso 

will share with us. We will look forward to hearing what states are 

doing to prepare for the winter and following summer in regard to 

the LIHEAP program. 

Our next witness will focus on the running of a LIHEAP program 

and give us some more on-the-ground perspective. Ms. Linda Barlow is the vice president of community-based alternatives of the 

Education & Assistance Corporation. The EAC oversees the 

LIHEAP program in Nassau County of Long Island in my district, 

and I was just down in their offices about 2 weeks ago. In addition 

to supervising the LIHEAP program, Ms. Barlow is a published author and serves as a consultant and trainer for various organizations. I look forward to hearing about the challenges and successes 

of administering LIHEAP at home. 

Our next witness is Mr. Lawrence Swanson. He is the director 

of ACTION-Housing, Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. ACTIONHousing empowers people to build more secure and self-sufficient 

lives through the visions of decent and affordable housing, essential 

support services and asset building programs and education and 

6

employment opportunities. Mr. Swanson has been at ACTIONHousing since 1979. 

Our final witness today is Mr. David Manning. Mr. Manning is 

the executive vice president of U.S. external affairs for National 

Grid and Key Span, a utility company which is part of the American Gas Association. Mr. Manning will testify on the AGA’s recent 

report, the increased burden of energy costs on low-income consumers, and the role that utilities can play in helping our nation’s 

low-income individuals and families through this winter and summer to follow. 

Given the energy cost forecast, I want to thank each and every 

one of you for coming. Each one of us on this committee is passionate about these issues. This comes through our jurisdiction, 

and I have to say that other hearings that we have had, we have 

had great results on trying to push through reauthorization on 

issues because of people like yourselves, you know, traveling and 

coming in and talking to us. 

So, first, we are not appropriating LIHEAP at its maximum authorized levels, and only 14 percent of those eligible receive assistance. As funds are consumed this winter, it is unclear how 

LIHEAP can continue to be of assistance to those in need in the 

summer months. I look forward to your testimonies and the work 

ahead of us. 

For those of you who have not testified before in front of us, in 

front of you, you have a lighting system. It will turn on green as 

you start talking. When it is the yellow light, you have 1 minute 

to finish up, and then red, we really ask you to wind up. We are 

not going to cut you off as soon as it turns red, but we appreciate 

it if you could follow through with that. 

And if you could do a favor, when you are speaking, turn on your 

microphone so that everybody here in the audience can also hear 

you. 

We will now hear from our first witness, the honorable Guy Caruso. 

Mr. Caruso? 

STATEMENT OF GUY CARUSO, ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. CARUSO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of 

the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss recent 

events in energy markets and the Energy Information Administration’s latest short-term outlook as well as our heating fuel price 

outlook. 

EIA produces objective, timely and relevant data, projections, 

and analyses that are meant to assist policymakers and to help 

markets function efficiently and inform the public. Our views and 

outlooks should be attributed to EIA only and not to the Department of Energy or the administration. 

My testimony draws from our November Short-Term Energy 

Outlook, which was released last Tuesday, and this outlook gives 

projections for world oil markets and U.S. energy markets through 

the end of 2008, including the price projections, consumption, and 

expenditures for heating fuels as they are projected. These projecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-72\38722.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
7

tions reflect weather forecasts from the National Oceanographic 

and Atmospheric Administration and household heating characteristics from EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 

As I review our outlook for prices and expenditures, I must stress 

that the heating bills for individual households are highly dependent on local weather, the market size, size and efficiency of the 

house and the behavioral characteristics, as you mentioned in your 

opening statement, and such things as the equipment being used 

in the individual homes. 

On average, households heating primarily with natural gas are expected to spend about $87, or 11 percent, more this winter in fuel 

expenditures than last winter. However, households heating primarily with heating oil are expected to pay an average of $375, or 

26 percent, more. Households heating primarily with propane are 

expected to pay an average of $273 more, or 20 percent more. Finally, households heating primarily with electricity are expected to 

pay an average of $22, or 3 percent, more. 

There are some significant regional differences in the use of various heating fuels, and the written testimony contains much more 

detail with respect to the regional costs throughout our country. 

Nationwide, about 58 percent of all households use natural gas as 

their primary heating fuel, and these average expenditures are expected to be up 11 percent due to higher prices and also expected 

higher temperatures this year compared with last. 

In the Midwest, nearly 80 percent of all households rely on natural gas, and they are expected to have a 12 percent increase in 

average expenditures. Regionally, the increase in expenditures for 

households relies primarily on heating oil ranges from 24 percent 

in the West to 30 percent in the South. However, only 7 percent 

of householders nationally rely on heating oil. In the Northeast, 32 

percent of households do, and there, the expected increase in expenditures will be 25 percent. 

Of course, these projections are highly dependent on the actual 

weather that occurs. Colder or warmer weather than predicted by 

NOAA in key regions of the country would have a significant impact on prices and consumption of heating fuels. Uncertainty in 

world oil markets could also be a major factor in the price of heating oil with the most impact on the northeastern region of the nation. 

Turning to energy markets in general, as we all know, oil prices 

have risen sharply this year and are likely to remain high through 

2008. We are expecting the price of the West Texas Intermediate 

Crude, which is traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, to 

increase from an average annual price of $66 in 2006 to $71 per 

barrel in 2007 to nearly $80 in 2008. A number of factors are driving these prices, including strong economic growth worldwide, production decisions by members of OPEC, moderate supply growth in 

non-OPEC nations, low spare productive capacity in OPEC, tight 

inventories, refinery bottlenecks, and ongoing geopolitical concerns. 

On the other hand, natural gas markets have softened. U.S. inventories reached an all-time high on November 2 of this year. In 

addition, key regions using natural gas for heating had warmerthan-normal weather to begin the fourth quarter of this year. Natural gas production continues to increase, particularly in the lower 

8

48. On-shore region and L&G imports are expected to exceed last 

year’s level by about 40 percent. The Henry Hub spot price of natural gas is expected to rise from the October average of nearly $7 

per thousand cubic feet to about $8 for the full year 2008. 

Madam Chairwoman, this completes by oral testimony. I would 

be glad to answer any questions that you or any other members of 

the committee may have as we proceed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Caruso follows:]


carus-1.eps
9


carus-2.eps
10


carus-3.eps
11


carus-4.eps
12


carus-5.eps
13


carus-6.eps
14


carus-7.eps
15


carus-8.eps
16


carus-9.eps
17


carus-10.eps
18

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Caruso. 

Mr. Wolfe? 

STATEMENT OF MARK WOLFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ENERGY ASSISTANCE DIRECTOR’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WOLFE. Okay. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify on behalf of the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, or NEADA, on the importance of the Low Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program meeting the heating and cooling needs 

of some of the nation’s poorest families. 

NEADA represents the state LIHEAP directors. Members of 

NEADA would first like to take this opportunity to thank the memVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-72\38722.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK

carus-11.eps
19

bers of the subcommittee for its continued program support in 

working to increase funding for LIHEAP. 

By way of background, there are four components of the LIHEAP 

program: the block grant providing formula grants to states to help 

low-income families pay their heating and cooling bills and also allows states to transfer up to 15 percent to pay for the companion 

program, weatherization, which helps families reduce their energy 

costs through conservation; emergency contingency funds that can 

be released by the administration for a number of reasons, including natural disasters, rapid increases in home energy prices, high 

unemployment rates and other economic conditions; the Residential 

Energy Assistance Challenge grant providing competitive discretionary grants to states to develop new strategies to assist households in reducing their home energy burden; and, lastly, the 

leveraging grants which provides states with additional incentives 

to raise nonfederal funds for energy assistance. 

In addition, the law authorizes the appropriation of advance 

funds 1 year before the start of the program year in order to allow 

states to plan for the design of their program. This is especially important in years when the appropriation for the federal fiscal year 

is delayed, as is likely in this year, and states in cold weather 

states have to start their programs without knowing the final appropriation level. The LIHEAP appropriation level for FY 2007 was $2.1 billion of which $1.98 billion was for the block grant and $181 million was 

allocated for emergency contingency funding. Of this amount, $27.3 

million of the block grant was set-aside for the REACH and 

leveraging programs. No advance funding was appropriated. 

For FY 2008, the appropriation level as provided in the FY 2008 

Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, as passed 

by the Congress, would provide the same level for the block grant 

but increase the emergency contingency funding by $250 million 

from $181.5 million to $431 million. As in FY 2007, again, no advance funding was appropriated. 

The President’s budget would have reduced the LIHEAP basic 

grant to $1.5 billion and provided $282 million in emergency contingency funds. This, in fact, would have been devastating impact 

on the program. At a minimum, we would have had to eliminate 

at least a million families in the President’s budget. 

The authorized level for LIHEAP was increased from $2 billion 

to $5.1 billion by the Energy Policy Act. The Act also continued the 

authorization level for emergency funds at $600 million. And I included a table in my testimony showing the allocation of $5.1 billion. 

Who receives LIHEAP? More than 70 percent of families receiving LIHEAP have incomes of less than 100 percent of the federal 

poverty, which is $20,650 for a family of four, and 44 percent have 

incomes of less than 75 percent of the poverty level, which is 

$15,500 for a family of four. Families receiving energy assistance 

carry a higher energy burden than most Americans, spending 

about 15 percent on home energy bills, compared to about 3.4 percent for all Americans. 

A major concern of state energy officers this year is the declining 

purchasing power of the program. This is largely because federal 

20

funding has just not kept up with the rise in energy prices. Unfortunately, energy prices are soaring. Home heating prices projected 

by the Energy Information Administration could reach almost 

$1,000 this year for a typical family, an increase of almost 80 percent of the cost of home heating during the winter of 2001-2002 

and 47 percent more than the year 2002-2003. 

And just by fuel type—this is what really concerns us—in 2003, 

it cost $951 to heat your home with heating oil. This coming year, 

according to the Energy Information Administration, it is $1,841. 

We think it will go even higher because global prices are approaching $100 a barrel. We think it is going to $2,200, which would be 

just plain devastating for low-income families in the Northeast. 

Natural gas has gone from $600 to $900 in this period. Propane 

from $926 to $622. And, again, propane tends to track oil prices. 

Electricity has gone from $697 to $845. And it is just not an issue 

of home heating. Electricity is used for cooling, and across the 

South, we are looking at rising electricity prices. We are very, very 

concerned about the impact of these prices on cooling, especially in 

that part of the country. 

We have been tracking and trying to put this in perspective in 

terms of rising energy prices showing how the purchasing power is 

declining, and, for example, 4 years ago, heating oil would buy 

about 36.7 percent of the average cost. I am sorry. The grant would 

buy about 36.7 percent of the cost of home heating with heating oil. 

Now it is about 20 percent. Natural gas would pay more than 50 

percent of the cost of home heating. Now we are down to 37 percent; propane, 37 down to 22; and so on. What it is showing is that 

the grant is not keeping up with the increase in prices. 

The other thing that is of concern is from 2003 to 2007, the number of households receiving energy assistance increased by 26 percent from $4.6 million to about $5.8 million in 2007, or about 15.6 

percent of the eligible population. During the same period, the federal appropriation increased by only 10 percent, with the resulting 

average grant declining from $349 to $305. This would not be a 

problem if energy prices were decreasing proportionally or remaining stable. 

So what does this mean for 2008? We started surveying states 

about a week ago and saying, ‘‘Well, what do you plan to do? You 

know, if grants stay about the same level—if the appropriation 

stays about the same level or it goes up by 10 percent—how will 

you set your grants?’’ And what I thought they were going to do 

was say, ‘‘Look, we are going to follow the same pattern as previous 

years. We will decrease the grants in order to adjust to increasing 

applications.’’

Instead what they have decided is that the grant has reached the 

point where it cannot be decreased any further, and so what they 

are planning to do in the absence of additional funding—this includes the $250 million that is in the budget passed by Congress—

they are projecting decreases of 10 percent to 20 percent on the 

number of families that can be served. So we are expecting to go 

from about 5.8 million in 2007 to about 4.9 million families. It 

would increase the average grant from about $305 to $400 on average. This would really be tragic in several ways because with rising 

21

energy prices, we are expecting more families to come into the program. 

I think—one more thing I would just like to mention—we have 

a strong partnership with utilities, and part of those programs, especially around the areas of arrearage management, are not working as well, as families have fewer dollars to match the kinds of 

matching programs we have to make up for overdue payments, and 

so what we are seeing is a very, very stretched program. 

Additional funding for LIHEAP can help to address rising arrearages and shutoffs, allow the states to reach out to vulnerable 

households and avert the type of hardships we know happen with 

families who do not have sufficient funds to pay their home energy 

bills. Adequate funding for LIHEAP can help families avert the 

need to choose between paying their heating and cooling bills and 

other vital household necessities, like food, medicine, and other essentials. 

The authorized level of $5.1 billion to provide sufficient funds to 

increase grant levels to adjust for inflation and energy prices and 

allow states to reach out to eligible households who are not currently receiving assistance. 

Thank for you this opportunity to testify today. I welcome any 

questions or requests for additional information. 

[The statement of Mr. Wolfe follows:]

22


wolfe-1.eps
23


wolfe-2.eps
24


wolfe-3.eps
25


wolfe-4.eps
26


wolfe-5.eps
27


wolfe-6.eps
28


wolfe-7.eps
29


wolfe-8.eps
30


wolfe-9.eps
31


wolfe-10.eps
32


wolfe-11.eps
33


wolfe-12.eps
34

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Wolfe. 

Ms. Barlow? 

STATEMENT OF LINDA BARLOW, VICE PRESIDENT, COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS, EDUCATION AND ASSISTANCE CORP. 

Ms. BARLOW. Okay. Good afternoon. I would like to thank the 

committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today on this 

very important topic. 

I am here representing the Education & Assistance Corporation, 

also known as EAC. Established in 1969, EAC administers over 70 

programs across Long Island and the five boroughs of New York 


wolfe-13.eps
35

City, assisting more than 45,000 people annually. Our unique programs provide services for people with substance abuse addictions, 

students experiencing learning difficulties, child victims of abuse or 

caught in the foster care system, frail elderly individuals needing 

support and guidance, and public assistance recipients seeking 

work. 

EAC assists people with basic living support, such as those who 

need help with utility payments. Due to the rising costs of energy, 

growing population of the elderly on fixed incomes, and the cold 

winters, these numbers are increasing daily. 

EAC has been administering the HEAP program since 1991. In 

the 2006-2007 heating season, we assisted 5,051 applicants. The 

program provides eligible households with benefits to assist with 

their heating and utility costs. EAC is under contract with the Nassau County Department of Social Services to process HEAP applications. 

Eligible HEAP applicants may also apply for additional services 

in our office. HEAP staff process applications for Verizon’s LIFELINE Program, which offers discounted telephone services for eligible clients. Clients who have exhausted their HEAP benefits may 

also apply for Project Warmth, which help clients who are in immediate need of oil or who have been scheduled termination. Project 

Warmth benefits are provided by the United Way and LIPA. 

In addition to HEAP, EAC also implements the Weatherization 

Referral and Packaging Program to assist low-income families in 

meeting home energy and safety needs. WRAP helps to identify energy-related structural problems in homes and makes arrangements for the correction of these problems. 

Almost two decades of administering HEAP gives our agency a 

breadth and depth of experience with the program. It is our contention that with rising heating costs coupled with the high cost of living on Long Island, many residents would be cold, hungry and possibly homeless without HEAP. 

Applicants line up at our door starting at 7:00 a.m. when the 

HEAP season starts. They are anxious and afraid of what the winter will bring. Many are vulnerable senior citizens who fear having 

to make a choice between getting their prescribed medications or 

staying warm. 

I just want to share with you a brief vignette to demonstrate how 

essential HEAP is. Mr. Jones applied for HEAP assistance on a 

cold February morning. He was interviewed by a worker and submitted all of the required documents to process his application. The 

application was approved for an oil benefit of $400. He thanked the 

worker and left the office. 

About an hour later, we noticed Mr. Jones still sitting in the reception area. Once again, we informed him that his application was 

approved and that he would receive the oil within 72 hours. This 

very tall frail 80-year-old man looked the worker in the eyes and 

said, ‘‘Yes, Ma’am. Thank you. I was just sitting here a while to 

warm up before I started walking home.’’ Home was eight miles 

away. 

It turns out that he had run out of oil during the night, had no 

money and did not have an oil contract with a company. EAC staff 

immediately went into turbo mode, and while he waited, we were 

36

able to get him a new winter coat, blankets and paid for a taxi to 

take him home. 

Despite an increasing number of applicants, our agency’s funding 

has remained set for the last 13 years. We currently receive 

$190,900 to operate HEAP and $30,916 for WRAP. With inflation 

and all other costs related to the program escalating, this has made 

it almost impossible to continue the program. Staff is severely 

undercompensated and, each year, they have to be laid off earlier 

in the season. As efficient as we are, waiting time for new applicants is now longer, averaging two and a half hours, as we do not 

have adequate staff. Despite our best efforts, we are losing ground. 

Heating costs for an average family using heating oil are projected to soar this year. Low-income Americans can least afford 

price increases. In 2007, the average American household will 

spend nearly $5,000 for residential energy services and gasoline. 

The 61 million households with annual incomes of $50,000 or less, 

the majority of American households, will spend 18 percent of their 

after-tax income on energy. In 1997, energy consumed just 10 percent of the after-tax income of these working families. 

HEAP has been a Godsend to the vulnerable population in Nassau County. The program needs to be reauthorized. However, reauthorization at the current level will not solve the problem. Agencies 

that implement HEAP need to receive enough money to properly 

serve their constituents in their time of need. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Barlow follows:]

Prepared Statement of Linda Barlow, Vice-President of Community 

Alternative Programs, EAC, Inc. 

Overview 

Established in 1969, EAC administers over 70 programs across Long Island and 

the 5 boroughs of New York City, assisting more than 45,000 people annually. Our 

unique programs provide services for people with substance abuse addictions, students experiencing learning difficulties, child victims of physical or sexual abuse or 

caught in the foster care system, frail elderly individuals needing support and guidance, and welfare recipients seeking work. 

EAC assists people with basic living support, such as those who need help with 

utility payments. Due to the rising costs of energy, growing population of the elderly 

on fixed incomes, and the cold winters, these numbers are increasing daily. Our 

home energy programs assist these low income families in meeting the cost of energy and utility expenses, safety needs and also identify energy-related structural 

problems in homes, making arrangements for correction of these problems. 

The Education and Assistance Corporation (EAC) has been administering the 

HEAP program since 1991. In the 2006/2007 heating season, we served 5,051 applicants. The program provides eligible households with benefits to assist with their 

heating and utility costs. EAC is under contract with the Nassau County Department of Social Services to process HEAP applications. Gross income includes but is 

not limited to salary, pension/retirement benefits, social security, unemployment 

benefits and worker’s compensation. All applicants are interviewed by a worker to 

evaluate their application and determine eligibility. 

Eligible HEAP applicants may also apply for additional programs in our office. 

HEAP staff process applications for Verizon’s LIFELINE Program, which offers discounted phone service for eligible clients. Clients who have exhausted their HEAP 

benefits may apply for PROJECT WARMTH benefits, which helps clients who are 

in immediate need of oil or who have scheduled termination notice for LIPA. Project 

Warmth benefits are provided through United Way and LIPA. Voter registration applications are also available for clients. Additional referrals are given for Food 

Stamps, Public Assistance and Emergency Assistance.

Funding: Funding for EAC’s HEAP program is provided by Nassau County Department of Social Services.

37

In addition to HEAP, EAC also implements the Weatherization Referral and 

Packaging Program to assist low income families in meeting home energy and safety 

needs. Working in combination with the Home Energy Assistance Program, WRAP 

helps to identify energy-related structural problems in homes and makes arrangements for correction of identified problems. 

Weatherization is an essential part of assisting families in need of home energy 

assistance. In order to ascertain a household’s needs, WRAP staff may conduct a 

home assessment to identity any apparent energy-related structural deficiencies. 

The WRAP Coordinator identifies any immediate needs necessary and assesses any 

other issues related to social, health or safety problems. If repairs are needed, 

WRAP staff serve as a liaison with the Weatherization Assistance Provider, helping 

to guide clients through the service process and working with the Weatherization 

Provider to ensure delivery of services. Recommendations may include insulation 

and caulking of windows and doors, repair of broken windows, replacement of doors, 

repairs on the heating system or wrapping of pipes and water heaters. 

Clients receive a directory outlining other agencies offering assistance with housing, home repairs, financial information, emergencies, weatherization, food pantries 

and crisis intervention.

Funding: Funding for HEAP is provided by Nassau County Department of Social 

Services. 

Successes 

Almost two decades of administering HEAP gives our agency a breadth and depth 

of experience with the program. It is our contention that with rising heating costs 

coupled with the high cost of living on Long Island, many Long Islanders would be 

cold, hungry and possibly homeless without the HEAP program. County residents 

line up at our door starting at 7:00 a.m. when the HEAP season starts. They are 

anxious and afraid of what the winter will bring. Many are vulnerable senior citizens and their issues are complex. They depend on HEAP to get them through the 

long winter months. 

I just wanted to share with you a brief vignette to show you how essential HEAP 

is. Mr Jones applied for HEAP assistance on a cold February morning. He was 

interviewed by a worker and submitted all of the required documents to process his 

application. The application was approved for a Regular Oil benefit for $400.00. He 

thanked the worker and left the office. About an hour later we noticed Mr. Jones 

sitting in the reception area and called him into the office. Once again we informed 

him that his application was approved and he would receive the oil within 72 hours. 

This very tall frail eighty year old man looked the worker in the eyes and said, ‘‘yes 

Ma’am thank you, I was just sitting here for a while to warm up before I start walking back home.’’ Home was 8 miles away, on this very cold and snowy day. 

It turns out he ran out of oil during the night and had no money for oil and did 

not have an oil contract with a company. He never mentioned this or the fact that 

his oil burner was completely off and needed a prime to start up again. He said that 

if he informed us that he needed a prime he would receive less oil and preferred 

to prime the burner himself. EAC staff immediately went into turbo mode, while 

he waited, we were able to get him a new winter coat, blankets and called and paid 

for a cab to take him home. 

Challenges 

Despite an increasing number of applicants over the years, our agency’s funding 

has remained stagnant for the last thirteen years. We currently receive $190,900 

to operate HEAP and $30,916 to operate WRAP. With inflation and all other costs 

related to the program escalating, this has made it almost impossible to operate the 

program. Staff are severely under compensated and each year we have to lay them 

off earlier in the season. As efficient as we are, waiting time for new application’s 

is longer (now averaging 2.5 hours) as we do not have the staff for adequate assistance. Despite our best efforts, we continue to feel like we are losing ground. 

Conclusion 

Heating costs for an average family using heating oil are projected to soar this 

winter. Lower income Americans can least afford price increases. In 2007, the average American household will spend nearly $5,000 for residential energy services and 

gasoline—The 61 million households with annual incomes of $50,000 or less-the majority of American households—will spend 18% of their after-tax income on energy. 

In 1997, energy consumed just 10% of the after-tax income of these working families. HEAP and WRAP have been a God send to the vulnerable population in Nassau County. The program needs to be reauthorized . However, reauthorization without additional financial support will not solve the problem. Agencies and programs 

38

that implement HEAP need to receive enough money to properly serve their constituents in their time of need. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Barlow. 

Mr. Swanson? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY SWANSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ACTION HOUSING 

Mr. SWANSON. Chairwoman McCarthy, Ranking Member Platts 

of Pennsylvania and other members of the committee—and I would 

like to mention that we serve under—the weatherization program 

I am going to talk about—part of Jason Altmire’s district who, I believe, is also a member of the committee. So I am one of his constituents in that matter. 

I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to 

testify about something that is very important to us at ACTIONHousing. My remarks today represent both ACTION-Housing, 

which is a regional nonprofit housing provider and the single largest provider of weatherization services in the State of Pennsylvania 

as a nonprofit and the weatherization task force. The weatherization task force is the 42 nonprofit and public agencies in Pennsylvania who deliver energy conservation services in crisis, emergency 

and no heat services every year in Pennsylvania. 

This is a huge, really important program for us. My organization 

has been doing weatherization for 25 years. We have done about 

$50 million worth of weatherization improvements in the City of 

Pittsburgh, Allegheny County and Washington and Green Counties, which we also serve. 

Why is a nonprofit in housing so heavily engaged in energy conservation? The answer is simple: Our mission is to help people create safe, secure, affordable housing. Other than the cost of rent or 

for a mortgage, the single largest component is the utility cost that 

they face, including heating and cooling. So we have long been engaged in this. 

I have come here to support the continuation of the option for 

using LIHEAP funds for weatherization and encourage, as well, the 

expansion of the program. In Pennsylvania, we use LIHEAP funds 

both to do the traditional conservation measures, but also to implement a crisis no heat situation throughout the state. Last year, $27 

million was used in LIHEAP in Pennsylvania for the energy conservation program. The energy conservation program is essentially 

a program that is involved in technical evaluation of air infiltration, the heat, the air that we either heat or cool in our environments, and that is the principle measure. 

The emergency no heat situation is a program where individuals 

who apply for LIHEAP cash assistance are given an opportunity to 

declare a no heat situation, and if they have one, they are immediately referred directly to the state weatherization services who, 

within 48 hours, have to intervene to determine whether it is a 

valid situation and intervene. Last year, 5,353 customers received 

that assistance in Pennsylvania. 

The weatherization work that we do based on the task force’s 

own analysis of our own performance achieves conservation savings 

39

of 15 to 35 percent. That amounts to $323 to $763 per household 

in our state, and it exceeds the one-time benefit of cash assistance. 

Why is there so much variation in what is saved? Well, Pennsylvania has a largely older housing stock. Our ability to intervene 

and provide the air infiltration measures varies tremendously depending upon the housing stock that we start with. Another factor 

is the quality of the heating equipment that we are dealing with. 

In other parts of the country, it is a combination of heating and 

cooling, and in the southern parts of our country, it is the cooling 

that is the primary factor. 

Much of our heating equipment in housing that is more than 15 

years old was designed for 50 percent and 60 percent efficiencies 

and operates well below 50 percent. The equipment that we are installing operates at 85 percent and 90 percent efficiencies, and in 

Pennsylvania, we go back and do an annual service for a couple of 

years afterward, and some of our customers stay with us for long 

term. 

Why is it important to Pennsylvania? Last year was an exceptional year, but most years, $15 million to $18 million, the full 15 

percent allotted, is used for the conservation and the crisis intervention program. We serve 4,000 to 5,000 customers a year out of 

the LIHEAP portion and then combine it with funds provided by 

the Department of Energy to make the difference. Many of these 

services that are provided on an emergency basis are minor in nature, but allow the restoration of heat. The program, this year, 

began on November 5. In our first week of operation, we had 118 

referrals at my agency alone to intervene in situations with no 

heat. 

In my remaining time, I want to talk about the importance of 

LIHEAP funds to our system. We are able to build a larger scale 

operation than our 42 agencies and respond in a cost-effective manner. In 2004, my agency joined with Allegheny County in its efforts 

to restore heat to 650 households that were without service due to 

the impact of Hurricane Ida. It occurred in late September. In a 45-

day period, based on the capacity that we had in place because we 

had the crisis funds to continue to do work, we were able to restore 

heat in 650 households in Allegheny County by the middle of December. 

This year, we had a small but significant for those affected flood 

situation where 100 families in Congressman Altmire’s North Hills 

District were essentially without heat. Today, we are working with 

Allegheny County to provide heat for those households without 

heat below 150 percent of poverty, again using foundation and 

charitable support for those above that to get people back in their 

homes. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Swanson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Lawrence A. Swanson, Executive Director, ACTIONHousing Inc. 

Madam Chairwoman and Committee Members: I am pleased to testify today in 

support of the utilization of LIHEAP funds for weatherization and emergency CRISIS based upon the experiences of my agency and the 42 other provider agencies 

in Pennsylvania. We are a diverse group of agencies across the Commonwealth that 

deliver this important program. We represent non profit housing organizations, comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-72\38722.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
40

munity action agencies and local public housing agencies. We use both private subcontractors and work crew models and mixes of those models to accomplish our 

work. We work in a State that is 1⁄3 urban; 1⁄3 small communities and 1⁄3 rural. 

Pennsylvanian’s use natural gas, electricity, heating oil, propane, coal and wood to 

heat their homes. And the State has developed a comprehensive program that responds to all these variables. 

Pennsylvania has seen strong leadership on a bi-partisan basis for some time. The 

Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) operates this comprehensive program and engages the operating agencies to design effective delivery systems. DCED also operates a training center for weatherization 

technicians, supports ongoing pilot programs and engages outside evaluators to help 

monitor the quality of the measures performs. This September the Governor and 

Legislature conducted a special session of the Legislature to examine a program for 

Energy Independence for Pennsylvania and is now considering a wide range of ventures that will assist our State. A centerpiece of this initiative is conservation of energy. It’s the single biggest payback that we have today for the investment we 

make. Residential and commercial energy conservation have proven paybacks for investments and they can be implemented in the short term. 

My organization, ACTION-Housing, is a non profit housing organization that operates a diverse set of programs designed to help people achieve secure and selfsufficient lives. Founded in 1957 we have worked to develop affordable housing, deliver important programs that make homes safer and economically viable and a 

range or programs that help families and individuals become more self-sufficient 

once they have a stable housing environment. We operate in the City of Pittsburgh, 

Allegheny County and work extensively in the surrounding counties in various programs. ACTION-Housing is the largest single Weatherization provider in Pennsylvania and provides services for the City of Pittsburgh, 2⁄3 of Allegheny County and 

the Counties of Washington and Greene. 

This includes the portions of the districts of Congressmen Altmire, Murphy, Doyle 

and Murtha. We have operated this program at scale for some 25 years and estimate that we have weatherized 22,000 homes and repaired or replaced 15,000 heating units in that time. The combination of LIHEAP weatherization and DOE weatherization has led to an investment of $ 55,000,000 in conservation during that period of time. 

All of these programs funded by 15% of the annual LIHEAP allocation in tandem 

with DOE funds have helped create a strong, vital network of agencies that provide 

high technology intervention in homes, respond to high priority needs and do so in 

a cost effective manner. This amounts to some $ 15-18,000,000 in each program year 

which is typically split between the regular weatherization programs and CRISIS 

interface efforts. 

Each of these provides critical work that makes a significant difference in the 

lives of Pennsylvania families and children. ACTION-Housing and the Weatherization Task Force of Pennsylvania representing all 42 providers strongly support the 

retention of the option for States to allocate 15% of funds for weatherization and 

pledge their ongoing support for the effective implementation of the program. 

The 2006-2007 Program Year 

The 2006-07 program year was an exceptional one in Pennsylvania. Though an- nual allocations from LIHEAP average $ 16,000,000 there were additional funds 

that were released from contingencies. As a result the allocation reached some $ 

27,000,000 last year. Funds were utilized for two distinct components for the program. The basic energy conservation program which used some 64% of the LIHEAP 

transfer ($17,000,000) and the CRISIS interface that works with LIHEAP cash assistance customer who have a no heat situation used 36% of the funding available 

($10,000,000). Each of these programs is described below. 

Energy Conservation With LIHEAP F nds 

The basic energy conservation program enables low income families to permanently reduce high energy usage. Weatherization aims to reduce the energy costs 

for low—income families, primarily the elderly and families with children, by making energy efficient improvements to the home. According to research conducted by 

the Pa Weatherization Task Force ‘‘At current Pa energy costs, the investment in 

energy conservation saves more in one heating than the average cash assistance 

grant in Pa. 

With Energy Conservation the Savings Continue Year After Year 

In Pennsylvania Weatherization providers embrace the concept of ‘‘whole house 

weatherization’’. Under this concept the house is treated as a single energy consuming-system rather than a loose collection of unrelated measures. Using this apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-72\38722.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
41

proach weatherization providers provide the best combination of measures for reducing total energy consumption. 

Our standard weatherization treatments include assessment, selection of measures, installation, and quality verification. Trained technicians use advanced computer software and diagnostic equipment to identify energy saving measures that 

are cost effective and safe. Common measures include the installation of insulation, 

ventilation, heating and cooling tune-ups, replacement of units of energy efficiency 

and/or safety, air sealing and installation of energy efficient lighting and appliances. 

Some 9200 households were weatherized in the program year with savings ranging from 15-35%. The use of LIHEAP funds enabled providers around the state to 

increase overall production in the energy conservation about 40% from the base of 

funds provided through the DOE funds. In many cases these funds not only served 

many people in need but also provided the scale of work necessary for an operating 

agency to function effectively and maintain its workforce. The key to capacity over 

the long term is a qualified and trained staff so that agencies can achieve effective 

savings in the work performed. 

CRISIS Interface With LIHEAP Funds 

This program is provided in every County in Pennsylvania and links those families who receive cash assistance but have no operable heat source with weatherization providers. During the winter heating season (November through March) local 

cash assistance agencies refer customers eligible for LIHEAP but without safe and 

operable heating systems to the network of weatherization providers. These repairs 

and replacements are performed on a 48 hour emergency basis and include emergency repair or replacement of heating systems, fuel line replacement, and hot 

water systems in low income households. In the 2006-07 year some 5,353 families 

were assisted with emergency repairs of primary heating systems. 

Key Facts Provided by the Weatherization Task Force Reports 

The Weatherization Task Force provides annual updates based upon who has 

been served across the Commonwealth as well as estimates of future energy costs. 

A few of those key findings are repeated below from recent reports: 

• Weatherization results in average savings of 15-35% in energy consumption 

among those served. Homes that receive both air infiltration treatments and heat 

plant repairs provide the greatest savings. 

• Low income families (those at 150% of poverty and below ) will spend about 

26.7% of their income in the total energy burden in the coming year. This compares 

to all households who spend about 4% of their budgets for energy. 

• Conservation is the lowest cost—proven source of energy and providing it to 

those with the economic means has the benefit of achieving conservation that would 

not otherwise occur. 

• The savings associated with weatherization at the 15-35% level equate to savings of $ 323 to $ 763 per year and exceed the annual payments for LIHEAP cash 

assistance in Pennsylvania and have annual benefits going forward. 

• The projected increases in electric, heating oil and gas prices in Pennsylvania 

for the 07-08 season will only increase the importance of the LIHEAP energy conservation program for the future. 

Final Thoughts 

The retention of the 15% State Option for LIHEAP funds is critical to the operation of an effective program in Pennsylvania. The diversity of the state and its 

needs have been best met by a well diversified program operated in tandem with 

LIHEAP cash assistance so that low income customers can receive help with paying 

their energy bill, reduce future expenses and live in a safe environment is the key 

to providing secure environments for our families and children. The use of these 

funds in Pennsylvania has meant that the state based program can reach through 

conservation 40% more families each year, provided a linked emergency heat program and given operating agencies the scale necessary to be effective over time. On 

behalf of the Weatherization Task Force and all 42 operating agencies we thank the 

committee for its support. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Swanson. 

Mr. Manning? 

42

STATEMENT OF DAVID MANNING, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, U.S. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL GRID, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MANNING. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

I want to thank you and the members of the subcommittee. 

My name is David Manning, and I am an executive vice president with Key Span, now National Grid. We serve over 3 million 

gas customers—and more electric customers—largely in urban 

areas, such as New York, but also in some of the very challenged 

areas in upstate New York, Worcester, Massachusetts, some portions of Long Island where the economy is struggling. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity as well to testify on behalf 

of the American Gas Association in strong support of additional 

federal funding for the life-saving Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which we are discussing, known as LIHEAP. 

AGA represents over 200 energy utility companies that deliver natural gas to more than 172 million Americans. For the purpose of 

home heating, approximately—all of you heard Mr. Caruso indicate—nationally 58 percent of homes depend on natural gas for 

their heat. In our particular territory, which is a larger oil heat region, that number, in fact, is lower, but it is still a major component of our energy needs. 

First, I would like to thank, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Platts, other members of the subcommittee that I know, for setting 

the stage for the fiscal year 2008 appropriation of $2.4 billion for 

LIHEAP. We appreciate this demonstration of support, and we encourage you strongly to continue to set the highest possible authorization level that you can. For 2009, we request that the subcommittee establish a LIHEAP authorization funding level of at 

least $5.1 billion. 

Again, I am the last speaker. I think it is almost self-evident, but 

I will continue. We believe it is absolutely essential to increase our 

nation’s home energy commitment to America’s most vulnerable 

citizens. AGA shares the concerns of many prominent organizations, but actual LIHEAP appropriations remain substantially 

below the current $5.1 billion authorized in fiscal year 2007. Interestingly, LIHEAP’s last appropriation was just 17 percent higher 

than the original funding amount that Congress approved at the 

program’s inception more than a quarter century ago, and yet during that period, the cost of the Consumer Price Index has gone up 

133 percent. 

Without question, more and more households need help paying 

their energy bills. The number of households eligible for LIHEAP 

funding has increased by 78 percent since the program began. Because funding has not kept pace with the growing need, an increasing percentage of eligible families simply cannot get help. 

In fact, despite the billion-dollar increase in the program in the 

fiscal year 2006, fewer homes got LIHEAP assistance than when 

the program started a quarter century ago. In 1981, the needs of 

more than 12 million eligible households were unmet. By 2006, the 

unmet need grew to 30 million. 

Higher heating and cooling bills hit low-income households the 

hardest. The energy burden on LIHEAP households was more than 

six times that for non-low-income households. LIHEAP recipients 

43

spend 20 cents out of every dollar on energy. Their burden is also 

increasing, leaving them with less for food, shelter and health care, 

and often making very difficult choices. 

I want to stress that the private-sector assistance is substantial, 

but these efforts cannot substitute for the decreased purchasing 

power of federal funds. 

Virtually all local gas utilities have programs and policies that 

enable low-income customers to manage their gas bills, such as deferred budget payment plans, payment counseling, weatherization 

programs, voluntary fuel funds, subsidized rates, matching grants 

for improved buildings, and appliance efficiencies. In 2006, utility 

programs generated $1.8 billion in low-income customer assistance. 

These were often paid for through very modest surcharges for consumers. 

AGA surveyed its membership additionally, however, on programs to assist low-income customers. Fifty percent provide shareholder contributions to low-income customers, 45 percent offer rate 

discounts, 38 percent support fuel funds, 35 percent forgive part or 

all of past arrears. 

It is evident that while states, local governments and the private 

sector have demonstrated their capacity to develop creative and effective programs to address energy assistance needs, collectively, 

these programs can only modestly supplement the essential federal 

support for LIHEAP and weatherization programs. 

In the future—and this is important—it is expected that the U.S. 

will adopt legislation to address climate change. Whether utilities 

will have to purchase credits to purchase emission allocations, 

whether they will have to pay additional taxes or fees, the legislature will likely impose additional costs in fossil fuel. I strongly recommend that this committee authorize an ongoing study of the potential cost impact of climate change legislation on the LIHEAP 

program and its recipients. Every increase in energy cost reduces 

the ability of this program to serve its mission. 

As the nation girds for winter, it is clear that LIHEAP must retain its $5.1 billion authorization amount and be infused with additional resources to receive an appropriate appropriation of at least 

$3.2 billion. 

Thank you very much. I will welcome your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Manning follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Manning, Executive Vice President, U.S. 

External Affairs, National Grid, on Behalf of the American Gas Association 

Executive Summary 

The Increasing Burden of Energy Costs on Low-Income Customers reports that: 

The number of households eligible for LIHEAP has increased by 78 percent since 

1981, when the program was created. 

Since the creation of LIHEAP in 1981, the consumer price index has increased 

by 133 percent, however funding for the program has increased by only 17 percent. 

Current funding should be $4.2 billion just to keep pace with inflation—and without 

taking into account the increased number of low-income families. 

Low-income households typically spend one-fifth of their annual income on home 

energy bills—more than six times the level that other income groups are spending. 

The proportion of income going towards home energy costs is growing despite notable conservation efforts on the part of low-income households. 

A survey of gas utilities showed that the total amount of natural gas customer 

uncollectible accounts rose 39 percent between 2003 and 2006, indicating that customers face increased difficulty in paying their home energy bills. 

44

1http://www.neada.org/comm/correspondence/070215.pdf 

2 Ibid. 

In 2005, utilities provided $1.8 billion in program assistance to help needy families manage their energy bills. Despite this significant level of support, the need continues to be far greater than utility programs are able to fulfill, despite our best 

combined efforts. 

Good afternoon, I am pleased to have an opportunity to testify, on behalf of the 

American Gas Association, in strong support of additional federal funding for the 

life-saving Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). 

The American Gas Association, founded in 1918, represents 200 local energy utility companies that deliver natural gas to more than 64 million homes and businesses throughout the United States. A total of 69 million residential, commercial 

and industrial customers receive natural gas in the US, and AGA’s members’ deliver 

92 percent of all natural gas provided by the nation’s natural gas utilities. AGA represents 189 local natural gas utilities that deliver gas to almost 60 million homes 

and businesses in all 50 states. For the purpose of home heating, approximately 52 

percent of LIHEAP households use natural gas; 21 percent, electricity; 10 percent, 

fuel oil; and 11 percent propane (2005 data). 

National Grid is an international energy delivery company. In the U.S., National 

Grid (www.nationalgridus.com) is the largest distributor of natural gas in the northeastern U.S., serving approximately 3.4 million customers in New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. It also delivers electricity to approximately 

3.3 million customers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island, and manages the electricity network on Long Island under an agreement with 

the Long Island Power Authority. National Grid is the largest power producer in 

New York State, owning 6,650 megawatts of electricity generation that provides 

power to over one million LIPA customers and supplies roughly a quarter of New 

York City’s electricity needs. 

First, I would like to thank Chairwoman McCarthy, Ranking Member Platts, and 

members of this Subcommittee for setting the stage for a Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 appropriation of $1.98 billion for LIHEAP, with an additional $431 million for emergency assistance. We appreciate this demonstration of support for LIHEAP, and encourage you to continue to set the highest possible authorization amount you can. 

If you do, you will afford your appropriations colleagues the essential maneuvering 

room they need to further improve funding for both LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program. 

For FY2009, we request that the Subcommittee establish a LIHEAP authorization funding level of at least $5.1 billion, and we join with the bipartisan appeal of 35 

of our nation’s governors, who earlier this year urged the congressional leadership 

in establishing at least a $3.2 billion appropriation for the program.1 Notably, we 

also stand with the Governors on the matter of further supplementing funds in the 

near-term, should that opportunity present itself.2 Additionally, we also recognize 

that many states exhaust their available grant dollars early in the fiscal year, and 

it is for this reason that AGA continues to also support the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA) recommendation that LIHEAP appropriations 

be forward-funded. 

We believe it is absolutely essential to increase our nation’s home energy commitment to America’s most vulnerable citizens who qualify for LIHEAP. It’s worth remembering that virtually all LIHEAP-eligible households live below, at, or just 

above our nation’s official poverty level, and further—that they shelter some combination of the elderly, the disabled, or the very young. 

The Need for Increased Funding 

The FY07 LIHEAP program was authorized at a level of $5.1 billion a year. 

Under the current Omnibus funding arrangement, this is also the present threshold. 

However, AGA shares the concerns of many prominent organizations that actual 

LIHEAP appropriations remain substantially below that authorization amount. 

LIHEAP appropriations briefly improved in FY 06, when $3.2 billion was committed 

to help low-income households with their home energy needs. Unfortunately, 

LIHEAP funding then fell to $2.2 billion in FY 07. Interestingly, that FY 07 funding 

level was just 17 percent higher than the original funding amount Congress approved at the program’s inception more than a quarter-century ago. By way of comparison, over the same time period, the consumer price index rose 133 percent. Had 

LIHEAP kept pace with inflation, annual appropriations would now be $4.2 billion. 

More and more households need help paying their energy bills. The number of 

households that are eligible for LIHEAP funds has increased 15 percent over the 

past five years and 78 percent since the program began. Since funding has diverged 

45

from the growing need for energy assistance, an increasing percentage of people that 

are clearly eligible for it, simply cannot get the help they need. In fact, fewer homes 

got LIHEAP assistance in FY 06 than when the program started a quarter-century 

ago. In 1981, almost 20 million were eligible for LIHEAP assistance, and the needs 

of more than 12 million (64 percent) households went unmet. By 2006, 35 million 

households were eligible, and the needs of almost 30 million (84 percent) went 

unmet. 

The Department of Energy reports that consumers’ heating bills will be higher 

across the board. Overall, consumers could face an average increase of 11 percent 

in their heating bills, and some must gird for a whopping 26 percent increase this 

winter. These percentages are premised upon weather forecasts that are close to 

normal. If the temperatures drop below normal, the increases in heating bills will 

be even higher. 

Higher heating and cooling bills hit low-income household hardest. The term ‘‘energy burden’’ refers to the portion of a household’s income that is spent on home 

energy costs. An average American family spends about six to seven percent of its 

total income on household energy. Non-low income households (with incomes above 

the LIHEAP federal maximum income standard) have energy burdens of only three 

percent or less. The energy burden on LIHEAP households is more than six times 

that of a non-low income household. Not only must LIHEAP recipients’ spend 20 

cents out of every dollar on energy, their burden is also increasing, leaving them 

with less for food, shelter and health care. 

Because of rising costs, many customers cannot meet all their obligations, and 

many are falling behind on their energy bills. Customers that have difficulty paying 

their energy bills are an increasing problem for utilities. 

NEADA estimates that 1.2 million households were disconnected and lost utility 

services in the spring of 2007 due to non-payment problems. 

A National Regulatory Research Institute report shows that the percentage of gas 

utility accounts that are past due rose from 16.5 percent in 2001 to 21.0 percent 

in 2006. 

The average amount past due for a gas account rose 27 percent—from $263 in 2001 to $334 in 2006. Furthermore, this trend appears to be increasing. Another 

study suggests uncollectible natural gas utility expenses increased 39 percent between 2003 and 2006. 

Low-Income Households Are Reducing Their Energy Needs 

Many low-income households have made great strides in reducing their energy 

consumption. The amount of energy used for space conditioning by these families 

declined 26 percent since 1981, in part due to conservation efforts funded independently or through LIHEAP and utility conservation programs. Low-income households reduced their space heating energy use by 36 percent since 1981. 

Despite these conservation efforts, the rising cost of energy over that time period 

has nonetheless caused home energy bills to rise, particularly heating bills. From 

1981 through 2005, overall energy expenditures for space heating and cooling for 

LIHEAP-eligible households increased 37 percent. 

Private Sector Assistance Is Substantial, but Cannot Substitute for Federal Funds 

Over the years, many private sector and utility-initiated energy assistance programs have been launched to supplement the basic LIHEAP program. For example, 

virtually all local gas utilities have programs and policies that enable low-income 

customers to manage their gas bills—such as deferred and budget payment plans, 

payment counseling, weatherization programs, voluntary fuel funds, subsidized 

rates, and matching grants for improved building and/or appliance efficiencies 

LIHEAP has also received strong support from a variety of community-based social 

service organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, the National 

Fuel Funds Network and churches and synagogues. 

Utilities 

Many utilities administer, sponsor, and promote programs to augment LIHEAP, and in 2006 utility programs generated $1.8 billion in low-income customer assistance. Typically, state and local policymakers collaborate to initiate and/or approve 

these programs. The costs for these programs are often recovered through a very 

modest surcharge. Further, and oftentimes, utility stockholders cover at least a portion of these costs. These programs do not include past-due customer debts that a 

utility must eventually write off as uncollectible. 

During the spring of 2006, AGA surveyed its membership on their programs to 

assist low-income customers. Of the 107 respondents with low-income customer programs: 

45% offer rate discounts 

46

35% forgive part or all of past arrearages 

38% support fuel funds 

50% provide shareholder contributions to assist low-income customers 

10% offer a discount on the reconnection fee to low-income customers that had 

been disconnected due to inability to pay 

35% have other programs 

The ‘‘other’’ categories include weatherization programs, universal service funds, 

special budget billings, and matching of customer donations. Nearly three-quarters 

of respondents (71%) had more than one program in place to assist low-income customers. 

State & Local Governments 

In addition to regulating utility assistance programs, state and local governments 

also provide direct funding and/or provide tax incentives to assist households in paying or reducing their home energy bills. In 2006, state and local governments provided $739 million for this kind of assistance. The governments fund these programs 

through general or special taxes as well as other sources. 

Fuel Funds 

These charitable programs are typically a partnership between fuel funds, community-based organizations (churches, synagogues, charities, etc.), local government 

agencies, and utilities. Fuel funds are dedicated to raising and distributing money 

for energy bill-payment assistance. Religious and other community programs assist 

households with utility bills as part of their charitable work. These programs are 

funded primarily by donations. In many instances, the utility will solicit contributions (e.g., by way of bill inserts), while government and community organizations 

will identify the qualified households that can benefit, and the community organizations will distribute the assistance. In 2006, fuel funds and other charitable organizations provided more than $103 million for energy assistance. 

Other 

Other parties that provide energy assistance to low-income households include 

faith-based/community groups, landlords (weatherization improvements) and fuel 

suppliers (bulk fuel discounts and needs-based discounts). These parties provided a 

total of $60 million in energy assistance in 2006. 

Despite All These Good Works—the Federal Role in LIHEAP Remains Absolutely Essential 

It is evident that while states, local governments, and the private sector have 

demonstrated their capacity to develop creative and effective programs to address 

energy assistance needs, collectively these programs can only modestly supplement 

the essential federal support for the LIHEAP and Weatherization programs. 

C–SNAP: Without LIHEAP—Children Suffer Gravely 

Just last month, the Children’s Sentinel Assessment Program (C-SNAP) linked 

rising fuel prices to the health and well being of poor children. Dr. Deborah A. 

Frank, a principal investigator of the report, explained ‘‘we know there is a medicine 

that is partially effective in protecting children during the current epidemic of the 

’heat or eat’ dilemma.’’ She pegged LIHEAP as an effective medicine to improve the 

well-being of poor children, and revealed that children in income-eligible families 

who do not get LIHEAP compared to similar children in income-eligible families 

who do, were more likely to grow poorly, and to have to be hospitalized. But, like 

a scarce vaccine, LIHEAP reaches only a fraction of the children at risk. Babies and 

toddlers in energy insecure households are most likely to suffer poor health, require 

hospitalization, have developmental problems, and lack adequate food. 

When families do not have access to sufficient energy, they often resort to unsafe 

heating methods and cannot refrigerate or prepare food. It is for reasons like these 

that we should all be troubled that in 2006, only 16.1% of LIHEAP-eligible households were helped. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to spotlight this crisis, and to 

begin to remedy it. 

Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Increase Energy Prices Even Further 

Congress is demonstrating substantial interest in materially addressing the challenge of global climate change. Several legislative proposals have been introduced, 

and are moving through the legislative process. Strategies proposed so far are widely anticipated to result in increased energy costs for all consumers, regardless of income. The need for LIHEAP assistance will grow even more once these measures 

47

are put in place. AGA believes that climate change legislation will absolutely necessitate increased LIHEAP funding. 

Support for LIHEAP is strong and widespread 

The American public supports federal energy assistance for low-income households. A national poll conducted in September 2006 found that by a 74 percent of 

all Americans support the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Moreover, 

72 percent of all Americans responding to the survey believe that Congress should 

increase funding for LIHEAP. 

Conclusion 

The need for LIHEAP assistance is much greater than the coverage currently provided by current federal appropriations for this purpose. AGA is aware that the 

number of at-risk households across our nation is rising. As our nation girds for 

winter, and also prepares to deal forthrightly with the added challenge of global climate change, it is clear that LIHEAP must retain its $5.1 billion authorization 

amount, and be infused with additional resources to achieve an appropriation of at 

least $3.2 billion. To paraphrase C-SNAP’s Dr. Frank, LIHEAP is a precious, lifesaving vaccine, and on behalf of the members of the American Gas Association, I 

respectfully urge you to aggressively dispense it to at-risk Americans struggling to 

heat and cool their homes. 

[Additional submission from Mr. Manning follows:]

48


mann-1.eps
49


mann-2.eps
50


mann-3.eps
51


mann-4.eps
52


mann-5.eps
53


mann-6.eps
54


mann-7.eps
55


mann-8.eps
56


mann-9.eps
57


mann-10.eps
58


mann-11.eps
59


mann-12.eps
60

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Manning. 

Listening to your testimony and reading your testimony, one of 

the things that became perfectly clear to me is that the association 

between heating for those homes and—by the way, the majority of 

homes that you assist with are hardworking families. Most of them 

have two or three part-time jobs, but they are working. Then, obviously, we are looking at those that are disabled, which are low-income jobs when they go out into the workforce, then, obviously, 

those that are senior citizens who can possibly not work. Again, 

speaking as a nurse, I am looking at the overall picture. 

I know in your testimony, Mr. Manning, you went into it a little 

bit deeper on those that cannot heat their homes most likely do not 


mann-13.eps
61

have enough money for food or even their medicines. So they are 

making choices on what they are going to be doing. The organizations that are out there, you know, that are helping, I also heard 

that they are cutting back because they do not have enough money 

to help those that need it the most. 

So it is very frustrating for certainly a number of us that want 

to make sure that those that—and I do believe the federal government has a role to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I believe in that with all my heart and soul since I have 

been here, and the majority of people that we have seen being 

helped through the district office, again, are the working poor. 

They are not looking for a handout. They want to work. 

And yet when we look at the children, we are sending them into 

the same cycle. We know that if you have a warm home, food on 

the table, are healthy, those children thrive, and yet we see those 

that do not have those ingredients do not thrive. We in the end, 

the community—the state, end up paying more money. 

So I believe that we need to strengthen our public-private partnerships and help states to find ways to work with companies to 

increase the reach of LIHEAP without lowering the benefits of 

LIHEAP. All of you talked about, you know, how we need the extra 

money. You know, hopefully, we will be able to override some the 

vetoes and be able to give the services that I believe that should 

go out to our citizens at this particular time. 

So, with that, I would like to ask all of you, we all know you need 

more money, we all know that. Are there better ways of trying to 

get the services out? And I am glad that Mr. Swanson brought up, 

you know, it is not just heating. It is doing the energy part of the 

home because the elderly homes—I know in my neighborhood, I 

have five or six neighbors that were there when I was a very little 

girl, and I know those homes have not been touched over the years. 

So I could see the heat probably going out the windows just about. 

So what else can we do? We will fight for the money. I mean, we 

always will. But is there any other way to reach out to those that 

need the help most, and how do you turn people away? I mean, 

that has to be the hard job for all of you. 

With the statistics Mr. Caruso had mentioned, one of the other 

things that I am concerned about is, you know, I am seeing in my 

state and especially on Long Island people are not spending, so the 

local taxes are not being collected, and programs that Nassau 

County runs might have to be cut back, too, and I am sure that 

is going to be happening all over the country. So I am looking to 

each and every one of you on helping us with maybe some solutions 

that we can also look at. 

Mr. WOLFE. Well, one thing that we have noticed is that there 

are new areas of concern. Medicaid has these new programs to 

keep people out of nursing homes, and what we are finding is that 

some of the elderly people are getting into shutoff situations. So I 

think that we need to almost rethink the LIHEAP program. 

When it was first started, it was a very focused program. There 

were very few elderly living at home. If you were frail elderly, you 

were in a nursing home. So we have new populations. There are 

new populations of families with young birth-weight babies. Thirty 

years ago, often, these babies did not survive, and, often, they are 

62

low income. So we have a growing population of vulnerable households, and so we need to revisit the shutoff rules for those families. 

We need to revisit how we target funds to help them. 

And then I think we also need to really think through as a grant, 

rather than an entitlement—it is currently designed to only reach 

about 17 percent of the population. So I think we need to think, 

you know, how can you use energy assistance to help both working 

families who work, still to go to work and take care of the home, 

and I think this is really an important niche piece, and we have 

not really addressed it in terms of 2007. 

It is really a program design for the early 1980s, and so I guess 

if I was going to make a recommendation, it is maybe time for all 

the different partners, both the utility partners, the way we fuel, 

the states and everyone to sit down and say, ‘‘With much higher 

prices than we had before, what do we want the Energy Assistance 

Program to look like?’’

And then the last piece is how does it tie into and affect with 

the weatherization? You know, the Energy Information Administration does this wonderful survey every couple of years, and the last 

one showed that low-income families used about 22 percent or 27 

percent, I think, more energy per square foot than non-low-income 

people because they have older appliances, they have older furnaces, and there is a lot of potential there for energy savings if we 

start thinking about low-income people not just as needing assistance, but as being able to contribute towards climate change legislation for efficiency. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Barlow? 

Ms. BARLOW. You had mentioned getting the private sector more 

involved, and I think that is something we really need to do. Our 

agency has been very aggressive over the years in seeking funding 

from foundations and getting private grants, and yet even within 

our own agency, HEAP is not considered one of the sexier topics 

and sometimes falls to the bottom. I think we need to market this 

program in terms of how it affects families and that it is an extremely worthwhile program and get the private sector more involved. 

At one point, we had approached Key Span for private funding. 

We continue to do that type of thing. Unfortunately, I do not think 

we can continue to rely on government funding, but somehow make 

it an area of concern that affects all Americans and market it in 

such a way that the private sector thinks this is something that 

they want to put their money towards. 

Mr. SWANSON. I would like to add that, first of all, I am embarrassed that Mr. Manning asked for expansion of LIHEAPs, and I 

did not do that. So I am personally embarrassed, but I will get over 

it. 

I attended a meeting last week in this town when Jonathan 

Fanton spoke, who is the president of the MacArthur Foundation, 

one of the large private charitable foundations in the country, and 

he talked—in the other part of my business, housing, affordable 

housing preservation—about the need to be bold, the need to see 

new opportunities and reach beyond where we are, and I think that 

63

is what the Chair is suggesting here. We need to think bigger 

about this. 

I think a dramatic expansion of the federal funding combined 

with state initiatives—in our state, as I am sure Congressman 

Platts knows, we had a special session of the legislature in which 

we talked about a major investment of state funds, I think it was 

about $800 million, on a whole range of conservation measures. 

Conserving energy will help. We still have the issue of how those 

after that can afford the utilities, and I think the utilities and the 

nonprofits and government working together on the state level can 

make a lot of impact. But I think it is time to be bold because I 

do not think the energy prices are going down, and I do not think 

that we can continue to do what we have been doing in the past. 

Mr. MANNING. Madam Chair, if I could just go forward, we have 

recently received a grant request from the EAC which is going to 

be accepted, and, again, wisely they are looking to the private sector for resources to manage their programs and develop programs 

so that the money goes purely to those in need, and I think that 

is an important piece, that they are not looking to the LIHEAP 

funding for their needs. They are going to look to people like us for 

that, and that is appropriate, and we need to be there, and we will 

be there. 

We also need to raise the awareness because with bill inserts, we 

have been raising about $200,000 plus per year from our customers 

on Long Island, just Long Island alone. That is from bill inserts, 

just talking about this concern. I do not read the bill inserts, and 

I write them. 

So I think there is an opportunity there to raise awareness 

among the community, but, at the same time, the community must 

know that, in fact, we need to help those who are most in need, 

and it has to be spread across the population. So I do think that 

the funds that we have requested must be there. 

Also, I want to tip my hat to those doing weatherization. Clearly, 

we are very focused ourselves in better programs to provide facilitation and incentives to weatherize, to reduce energy consumption. 

You pointed out yourself that there is a lot of education there. 

Mayor Bloomberg just recently pointed out that he was unplugging 

his cell phone charger because he did not realize that it was still 

running when he was not home and his phone was with him. So 

I think there is an education function. 

I think there is an additional funding function. I think it hits 

those in the cities. I think it hits those in the rural areas. I think 

that this is really a national crisis, and I think it is driven, in fact, 

by the fact that I do not think any of us, those of us in this business—Mr. Caruso and I have been having conversations about energy prices for 20 years, and maybe he anticipated this. I did not. 

So I think what has happened now is that we really do have a 

tremendous issue before us, and I think it is our responsibility to 

try and provide additional education in terms of how to manage 

these issues, provide additional incentives and facilitation for those 

who are least able to do so to use less energy and, of course, provide more funding and provide more partnership dollars just as we 

are doing with EAC. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

64

Mr. Platts? 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Wolfe, in your testimony, you talked about the realities of 

where we are today, and perhaps as many as 10 to 20 percent of 

eligible families will likely not get assistance this year because instead of reducing down the grant, we are going to reduce the number. You know, the way the bill passed out of conference and we 

passed it in the House, it is about a $2.4 billion block grant and 

contingency. What do you think that number would be if we were 

to not have that 10 to 20 percent cut, but no increasing grant 

amount? What do you think the number would have to be? 

Mr. WOLFE. There is no one answer to that, but, basically, in 

2006, when we had the extra billion dollars and funding was at 

$3.1 billion, that was adequate to meet the needs for about 5.8 million households. States were able to increase their grants to adjust 

to rising prices. In 2007, this last year, some states carried money 

forward from that $3.1 billion, and that sort of helped keep the balance. 

Going to 2008 where the extra $250 million is certainly welcome, 

the thing also is we do not know when it will be released. You 

know, every year, it is a fight with the administration to get these 

dollars out there, and so you cannot count on them. But what the 

states are saying is that the appropriation has not kept up with the 

increased energy prices. That is the real problem. 

And when you look at the Northeast especially with heating oil 

or the Midwest or states like Texas that use propane, we are very 

worried about those places because what should happen this year 

is you should have enough money because especially elderly families, people who grew up during the depression, do not like to ask 

for help. The prices are so high that we expect people to be coming 

in that we did not see last year. 

So, when I initially put my testimony together, I assumed we 

would be going to about 6.2 million, 6.3 million households, and 

then as I was talking to the states this last week, they were all 

saying the same thing, ‘‘We have to cut the program back in order 

to provide a meaningful benefit.’’

And now there is another piece to add to that, too, and I think 

this is where it is getting very troubling. Energy assistance is becoming a checkerboard across the country. Some states are providing significant supplemental assistance. So combined LIHEAP 

will get through. Other states for different kinds of reasons provide 

much less assistance or none. So, in those states, if you are low income, you are much worse off. 

So we are looking at a situation developing across the country 

where some parts of the country, there could be an adequate package of services to help people both in the winter as well as the 

summer. Other states, it is much less. And I do not think that is 

a good situation for the country. 

I think we have to have a core basic appropriation level, and, 

again, you know, this is not an entitlement. There is no magic 

number—$5.1 billion would be much, much better, but $3.1 billion 

was enough that you could see in states the ability to work out new 

partnerships with utilities. It seemed much better. It seemed like 

we were bringing enough money to the table that you could sit 

65

down with the utility companies that are delivering services and 

say, ‘‘Well, let us work out a better program this year,’’ and there 

was much more willingness. So that to me seemed like the minimum level to keep the program going. 

Mr. PLATTS. Is there a state that you would point to as being a 

leader in the state assistance complementing——

Mr. WOLFE. Well, a number of different models, but I think 

states where you can see, you know, good examples—New York for 

sure, Massachusetts has strong programs, California, Wisconsin—

where you see states do a combination of things. For example, like 

in Pennsylvania, where you have strong shutoff protection rules 

during the winter heating season. You have a combination of shutoff protections, arrearage management programs, as well as discounts on electric and gas, as well as supplements for delivered 

fuels. When you put them together, you come up with an ability to 

pay at least half the bill, and that seems to be important in order 

to keep people connected. 

The other thing that we are very worried about is the arrearage 

management programs that we have developed over the years with 

utilities where, in a sense, a family runs out of money, cannot pay 

the bills during the shutoff moratorium, in the shutoff moratorium, 

that the matching part offered to help them pay the difference—

we are finding more and more families just do not have any money. 

They really do not have anything to contribute, and so that is also 

alarming us and points to the fact that the $2.1 billion or $2.4 billion is not enough now to meet the needs. 

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Caruso, you touched on the different areas—oil, 

natural gas, propane—and this is related but not to the LIHEAP 

program. It is related because it impacts the cost and how far the 

funding goes. When you talked about electricity, you talked about 

a 3 percent projected increase. Is that mainly because electricity is 

heavily coal-fired plants and so there is less volatility? 

Mr. CARUSO. Yes, it is. Fifty percent is coal generated, and the 

coal price stays relatively low, and 20 percent is nuclear. So both 

of those base load electricity-generating fuels have been at about 

2 cents per kilowatt hour, so that has been pretty steady. 

Mr. PLATTS. So it is fair to say, as we look at issues like 

LIHEAP, there are a lot of bigger issues, too, the broader energy 

policy and if we are able to advance more clean coal or if we return 

to development of nuclear. I was in, let us see, 10th grade, I guess, 

when Three Mile Island happened. We were 10 miles from the 

plant. That scared everyone off for 30 years now. But if we were 

able to make progress in those long term, that gets to issues that 

impact programs such as LIHEAP because it does have an impact 

on energy costs. 

Mr. CARUSO. That is absolutely correct. There are a lot of issues 

with respect to things like carbon restraints, which would change 

that picture, and renewable portfolio standards, which are being 

debated as we sit here. So I think everyone has indicated they believe we are in for long-term higher prices, and I think part of it 

is this changing fuel mix picture as well. 

Mr. PLATTS. Yes, I am the lead Republican with Congressman 

Markey from Massachusetts on the CAFE standards where, you 

know, one change could diminish our importation of foreign oil by 

66

10 percent by raising CAFE standards for automobiles to 35 miles 

per gallon, which certainly is a good starting point in my opinion, 

you know, to impact, again, the big picture which then drives these 

issues. 

I have other questions, but I know I have to wait for a second 

round if we have a chance to come around. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Platts. 

Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland? 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding the hearing. 

I want to get a little more information about whether there is a 

train wreck coming this winter, and it sounds to me like there is, 

and it sounds to me like people will freeze to death this winter because they are not getting heat, and that $3.1 million in 2006, 

while it may have represented kind of the minimum you could get 

away with under the cost of energy at that time would not be 

enough today if it were at that level given the cost of energy. 

But, of course, we are talking today about levels that are much 

lower than that, and the president of the United States of America 

this morning vetoed the Labor HHS Education appropriations bill, 

which contained more money for LIHEAP than he had proposed, 

but even then not nearly enough to address the need that you have 

described. 

So I would just like you to get on the record so that in January 

and February and March when the local 11 o’clock news is running 

stories about how people are freezing to death in their apartments 

or their homes because this assistance was not available, we can 

look back on this hearing and understand why. So, if you could 

speak to that, I do not know if numbers are kept about what happens to people as a result of not getting this assistance from the 

prior year, but I would be interested in that perspective, and then 

in any predictions you have, as specific as you can get, about what 

is coming this winter if we do not have the kind of resources in 

place that we need to provide people with this assistance. 

Mr. Wolfe, maybe you can start. 

Mr. MANNING. Mr. Wolfe, perhaps I can just make one quick correction to the record which would be helpful in response. Then I 

will yield the time. 

The number of eligible families or individuals who can qualify, 

who can actually receive this funding, is 16 percent. So it is not 

that we are serving all but, say, 20 percent. Only 16 percent of 

those who are eligible under the guidelines to receive LIHEAP 

funding actually receive it. So there is your first scary number, and 

now I would like to——

Mr. WOLFE. Okay. We received funding from the Appropriations 

Committee 2 of the last 4 years to conduct surveys of families receiving energy assistance, and we asked them that question, ‘‘What 

happens when you do not have enough money?’’ I do not think it 

is as black and white in a sense as freezing to death or not freezing 

to death. 

What happens is that people say that they do not buy as much 

food, they do not buy medicine, they cut back on other essentials—

clothing, for example, for their children. The elderly—they turn the 

67

heat down to unsafe levels. We know from public health data that 

if it is too cold in the apartment and you are elderly, some medicines do not work that well. We know that people do not use their 

air conditioning in the summer. They are afraid to turn it on. And 

if it is hot in the summer and you are in a very hot apartment, 

the incident of stroke increases. 

So if the kinds of public health things that this program helps 

prevent will not—what will happen? And those are the kinds of 

things we are concerned about. Also at the edge, you do see an increase in fires. We know what happens when people have their 

power turned off or cannot afford to buy heating oil. They do unsafe things, they use candles. In D.C. about a year ago, there was 

a tragic fire in a part of the city where a young boy died because 

they were using a candle for a light at night, and it, unfortunately, 

got knocked over. 

Those do not happen as much. I think they used to happen a lot 

more 25 years ago, before there was a LIHEAP program. 

Mr. SARBANES. What does it mean for a senior to reduce the temperature in their home to unsafe levels? 

Mr. WOLFE. If you reduce it below 65 at night, the evidence is 

quite strong that if an elderly person gets up at night, in the middle of the night to, say, go to the bathroom or something, and it 

is very cold, they can get disoriented and slip. There is ample evidence of that. 

We know that medicine that helps prevent heart attacks or high 

blood pressure medicine does not work as well in a very cold apartment. So those are the kinds of things that we are concerned about. 

We also know from evidence from surveys that elderly people will 

not buy as much medicine to pay their energy bill. 

It is sort of quiet suffering, I guess you could say, and without 

adequate energy assistance, you will see an increase in that. 

Mr. SARBANES. Would you venture a prediction of how this winter is going to compare with the last 10 winters in terms of the incidence of need and then crisis based on where prices are going and 

the amount of assistance that is available? 

Mr. WOLFE. What I think is going to happen this winter are a 

couple of things. One, states will impose much tougher moratoriums than in the past, and shutoff moratoriums will continue on 

through May, and that has happened when in previous times there 

has not been enough energy assistance money. States will shift 

money from regular utilities to pay for heating oil and propane because those are immediate bills that have to be paid. 

We will also find we will not be doing the outreach that we 

should be doing. There are elderly people who we know are eligible 

but struggle and do not like to ask for assistance, but if the price 

of heating oil hits $2,000 this winter, they will have to ask for assistance and we will have to turn them away because we do not 

have enough money to help them. 

Those are the kinds of things that I think will happen this winter, and they are preventable. 

And I think the other point to add is that energy assistance is 

not like Medicaid where you have, you know, tough issues like cancer, curing cancer or curing illnesses. This is a program that comes 

down to a bill. It is not a complicated program, and we have a netVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-72\38722.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
68

work in place of well over 1,000 community action agencies, for example, that reach people, that provide services, so funding can be 

spent quickly. This is not a program when additional funding is 

provided that it just sits there. 

So the way I always think about energy assistance is that even 

though we have a fairly complex law, it is a very, very straightforward program. It is a program that comes down to a bill, and 

it is really for the absence of having adequate funding, and the 

thing is over the years we know what happens when you do not 

have enough funding. We know the kinds of tragedies that happen, 

and they are totally preventable. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Ms. Clarke from New York? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking 

Member, to our panelists. 

Today is a very important issue. I think it has really been driven 

home by your testimony, and I thank you for taking the time. 

I do not think there is anything more disturbing or more distressing than hearing of the death of an elderly person who has frozen to death or death by fire because of faulty wiring of an electrical appliance, or similarly the converse, for seniors and children 

who suffer in extreme heat conditions in the summer or in those 

areas where the climate is always very warm. 

This question is for you, Mr. Wolfe. Our weather patterns have 

become less and less predictable and increasingly more dramatic. 

We have seen summer temperatures extend well into fall and 

storms increase in ferocity. Working-class, low-income families are 

being adversely affected by these extreme changes. 

Here is my question. In your testimony, you discuss the complex 

formula that determines LIHEAP appropriations in regard to the 

amount of heating and cooling days per year. Does this formula 

take into consideration the unpredictable weather patterns that we 

have seen in recent times, and, if so, what does this formula look 

like? 

Mr. WOLFE. Well, the formula right now is that the funds are allocated on the basis of a hold harmless provision that, I think, goes 

back to 1981. When you go past $1.975 billion, the new formula 

kicks in, or the formula that was passed back in 1986 kicks in, and 

that takes into account heating and cooling days over time. So 

changes in weather would be taken into account. 

For example, in the Midwest, in states like Nebraska, people 

have told me they now have days in the summer that they would 

like to be able to provide cooling assistance, and that is fairly new. 

In the cold weather states, it is still cold. It might not be quite as 

cold, but it is still cold. 

What we are finding is that in the past, back in 1981, there was 

not much known about the need for cooling in the summer. People 

just thought, ‘‘Well, you know, it gets hot. You know, just open the 

window.’’ Now we know when it gets hot, the rate of stroke for the 

elderly goes up. We know that cooling is extremely important 

where, I think, when the programs passed, there was less knowledge. We also know a lot more about the impact of being in a cold 

apartment than we did. 

69

So the public health concern for LIHEAP and the knowledge behind there, I think, is much stronger than it was then. 

And we also know that, as I was saying earlier, there are more 

and more people in frail health living at home that need adequate 

energy assistance. It really should be part of their program to keep 

them in the house, and, unfortunately, it is not. It is often thought 

of as an aside, like, ‘‘Oh, right. There is an energy bill there.’’ Well, 

it is an extremely important part of the package of helping people 

stay healthy in their homes. 

Ms. CLARKE. I have heard in your testimony the discussion 

around weatherization and how critical that is, but, you know, I 

think that that is a preventative measure. For many homes in New 

York City, in Brooklyn where I am from, there is a cost involved, 

and, you know, I wanted to ask both you, Mr. Wolfe, and Ms. Barlow. In your testimony, you state that weatherization is a central 

part of assisting families in need of home energy assistance. Mr. 

Wolfe, you stated that if a home is weatherized, it can use up to 

30 percent less energy than a comparable home. 

What can we do to help educate more families on the importance 

of weatherization and energy efficient living, given the fact that 

there is an upfront cost to those families? Oftentimes, people defer 

it because, you know, their income to do something like that is not 

there. It is just as bad. It is like being between a rock and a hard 

place because your energy is going up, yet you cannot do the things 

that are required because of the finances involved. 

Can you both give us a sense of that? 

Mr. WOLFE. That is a very good point. Unfortunately, the core 

program of the weatherization assistance program does not receive 

sufficient funding. It is only enough funding to serve about 100,000 

families a year. States supplement that with their own funds. So 

there is enough funding to weatherize about 200,000 homes a year 

nationally. That is in contrast to the close than 6 million families 

that get energy assistance. So really the federal focus is really on 

bill payment, but the data are clear there is a lot of potential to 

save energy in low-income homes, which would result in a lower 

energy bill. 

Ms. CLARKE. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Swanson, if you would give us 

your impressions as well. 

Ms. BARLOW. As I indicated earlier, we only receive annually $30,000 a year for the WRAP program, and with that money, we 

do a home assessment to identify any apparent energy-related 

structural deficiencies. We make recommendations that might include insulation, caulking of windows and doors, repair of broken 

windows, replacement of doors, repairs on the heating system, or 

possibly wrapping the pipes and water heaters. So it is a tremendous savings. 

Again, maybe some sort of public service announcements—we 

need to get the word out there that this is available, but, again, 

funding is really a critical issue to reach all the people, and it 

would be a tremendous cost savings. 

Mr. SWANSON. I think that in addition to what I have said in my 

comments about Pennsylvania, my organization provides both direct services and quality control for major utilities. We have been 

able to get them significantly engaged in the conservation proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-72\38722.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
70

grams as well. I think the scale is there to do a lot more and get 

a lot of involvement. 

Mr. Manning mentioned that in Pennsylvania we have private 

contributions by other rate payers, and we are beginning to see a 

mix of loan programs provided by our state agencies for those who 

are not quite in this extreme need, but who have some of ability 

to pay but need these measures. 

If there is one thing I have seen over a long period of time, it 

is a progression of people who more and more have problems with 

their bills. So, at the same time that we are responding, as Congressman Clarke said, to those people in need, we also want to 

build a protection system for those who are close to that margin, 

and given the likely increases in energy costs over time, that is 

going to be a continuing issue. Pennsylvania is a state that has 

benefited in many ways—85 percent of its electricity is coal generated. It is the original coal and steel state, okay. 

But those protections have helped us a bit. But we have to build 

a program that starts with people with the greatest need and responds to everybody. 

Mr. MANNING. Congresswoman Clarke, just very quickly, we are 

working also at the state level as a company to ramp up and to introduce additional and new incentive programs for energy efficiency, and allocation will be set for those who are least able to 

help themselves. So there will be a committed amount out of those 

additional funds, and we are working through that at the state 

level, but it is not nearly enough to get us where we need to be. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And it is great to see you, Mr. Manning. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

If it is all right with the panel, we have extra questions that 

some members would like to do. So I do not know what your time 

restraints are, if you could spend a little bit more time with us? 

Mr. Platts? 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I guess first maybe, Mr. Swanson, with your work in weatherization and the conservation side, I think one of the challenges of how 

to reach out to individuals to understand the benefits, and even 

with their own funds, not waiting for public, you know, assistance 

or private assistance, but depending on the type of unit in which 

they live that it would be in their own best interests to invest, and 

so, you know, do you have suggestions on how we can better outreach to the public to say, you know, ‘‘here—you know, in the fall, 

investing in this weatherization with your own dollars, in the end 

going to reduce’’—rather than waiting to get to that crisis? 

And then related to that, is one of the challenges—and I do not 

have numbers to back this up, but my assessment is that with lowincome families, more of them are living in rental properties. And 

so where there is any kind of investment that is infrastructure involved, they are not really the ones to be making that investment—

the landlord is, and if the landlord is not paying the utility bill, the 

renter is paying it directly. The landlord does not really care to 

make the investment because it is not going to save him or her 

money. It is going to save the renter money in that direct payment. 

Do you have any feel for that? 

71

Mr. SWANSON. Yes. The first issue is how do we encourage people 

in general, particularly those of modest means, to invest in energy, 

and one of our benefits is we have been doing this for 25 years. We 

actually started doing a lot of low-tech energy items for people, and 

public agencies did it. Utilities have done it. The time has come to 

go back to a serious investment in resources from private utilities 

and from weatherization agencies to convince people they have got 

to look at their consumption of energy, how to reduce it. 

You know, the other side of this is behavioral changes within acceptable limits. I am always concerned about pushing turning the 

thermostat down too low because, as Mr. Wolfe has testified, particularly with our senior citizens, they get carried away with it and 

create dangerous situations. But the behavioral changes along with 

the other modifications, to go back to more serious investigations, 

reduce energy, and this is not just for people with modest incomes. 

You know, it has tremendous other positive benefits. So I think we 

need to go back to that, and we need to go back to it in a way that 

is more comprehensive and that reaches out to those that I generally refer to as those that are hard to serve. 

The hardest work we do at ACTION-Housing is providing service 

to people for the first time. These are people, seniors or not, who 

are tremendously resistant to taking advantage of any resource. I 

see Congressman Clarke. She knows what I am talking about. 

These are people who keep saying, as poor as they are, as needy 

as they are, ‘‘This is not for me,’’ right? ‘‘I do not need help. I need 

to go on my way.’’

We have to find ways working with those who understand communication a lot better than we do to connect with those people 

and make a difference, okay? So we need to do that, and, in many 

ways, we need to do it for all our households, to make a difference 

not only in terms of affordability of energy, but also conservation, 

as you mentioned. 

What we could do in autos, what we could do in homes and, I 

believe, residentially—there are experts here. Residential and commercial is like 40 to 50 percent of our energy consumption. It some 

significant number. 

Mr. CARUSO. Thirty. 

Mr. SWANSON. Thirty percent. Well, it is a huge consumption of 

energy in our society, and we have mostly ignored it, okay. So I 

think that is the answer there, is go back to that, and most of our 

utilities provide high-quality audits. We do. And we can do them 

very affordably, and that is really a message there. 

I have now forgotten your second question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PLATTS. I believe I have as well. [Laughter.] 

Mr. PLATTS. And I am going to run out of time here. Actually, 

I am going to jump to Mr. Manning for a different question. 

And it sounds like from Mr. Swanson’s testimony or statement 

in the last response that utility companies are trying to partner 

with customers investing in improvements, conservation efforts, 

weatherization and providing some funding for that, for their customers. 

Mr. MANNING. Absolutely, and there are various different pots. 

I mean, to be candid, there is a regulatory opportunity here at the 

72

state level where it can be spread across the rate payers. So those 

are some of the incentive programs which exist. 

In addition to that, companies such as ours are putting in shareholder dollars. So the most traumatic was we had a very cold winter 2 or 3 years ago. LIHEAP completely ran out. It was the first 

of March. It was still severely cold. And we had an opportunity and 

we just redirected $3 million from what was going to go into a 

bonus program right into making up those dollars. So that would 

be the extreme case where you just write a check from the shareholder. 

We also have a foundation which participates every year. We also 

work very closely with all of the various organizations that are 

doing this. So there is a shareholder opportunity. There is a ratepayer opportunity where they all participate, and there is an outreach to the consumer as well, and I do not think we have done 

enough there because, as I indicated, we have had some pretty 

good response with minimal outreach. 

So I think those are sort of your opportunities, and, again, knowing that—I mean, Mr. Swanson has been very articulate on this 

need for weatherization, and the unfortunate thing is we are so 

concerned about just the health of our people this winter that we 

would like to do more on the weatherization, the long term, the 

prevention. We would love to do more on that. 

Obviously, we are being held back a bit because we are keeping 

concerned about those who are eligible for LIHEAP, and as the 

chairwoman pointed out, many of these are working families. These 

are the struggling, working, poor families in the rural areas where 

the economy is not strong, in the inner city. We have many of both, 

and we see it. 

So, yes, we absolutely believe it is an opportunity to partner, but 

let us be perfectly clear. The opportunity to bear this with the entire population of the nation is not only opportune, but it is necessary because that is the scale of the problem. 

Mr. PLATTS. A final kind of broader picture question for you, Mr. 

Manning, and it relates earlier when I asked Mr. Caruso about coal 

and you talked about coal and nuclear. I am one that believes that 

to address this and related issues that have any connection to energy, we need a truly comprehensive plan, so I am one who is Republican, who is the lead Republican on the CAFE standards, on 

renewable energy standards, promoting alternative renewable 

fuels. 

But I am also on the other side as far as production that we better access our resources that we have, especially to make the transition to new technology, and in the natural gas area, there is a 

lot of documentation of our huge reserves in the outer continental 

shelf area and, you know, getting access to the area that most 

other nations are already accessing in their regions, but we are not. 

Mr. Caruso mentioned the number 11 percent as the projected 

increase this winter for those who use natural gas. Any projection 

of, if we were better accessing those resources that we currently 

are not, how big a difference it would make in that 11 percent? 

Would it be half of that if we had that, you know, reserve available, 

or does it give any kind of projection? 

73

Mr. MANNING. My friends behind me will be smiling because, of 

course, this is an opportunity I have been waiting for for some 

time, and——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PLATTS. And no one told me that, but it is part of my approach. 

Mr. MANNING. Well, I actually am a chosen American. I got my 

citizenship this year, and I could take you just a few hours north 

of here to Eastern Canada where, of course, we have been drilling 

successfully very well and very safely, and there is a tremendous 

resource. You are absolutely right. 

And the AGA has been very committed because we have the relationship with the consumer. We are the ones that serve. We are the 

ones that talk to the consumers. We are the ones that are taking 

care of those who need the resource. My background is in the upstream, and so I, in fact, worked on the rigs when I was 18. So, 

if you ever want to have this conversation, I am available. 

But, yes, I cannot give you hard numbers. I think probably my 

friend on the end can do more, but we need it all, and to increase 

your availability of natural gas does not say that you are not going 

to do wind. We absolutely need it all, and we need an energy strategy that captures all of those resources because we cannot get 

there from here without them. 

So we are absolutely enthusiastic about renewables, and we are 

doing everything we can, and our company has done a lot of work 

to make sure we facilitate that. We installed the first fuel cells in 

Staten Island in 1972. So we are also the first ones to tap methane 

coming off a landfill in New York City. So that is another conversation for another day perhaps, but——

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you and, again, my thanks to all of our witnesses, both the big picture and then on the front lines—if I remember, Mr. Jones who came to your program—in truly serving 

those in need. I commend you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Actually, I am listening to the conversation. I said, ‘‘This could be the energy committee’’ as we are 

listening to everything, but it is true because one fits into the 

other. I know that on the island I do read those little flyers that 

you put in there, and I am going to be very honest with you as, 

maybe, just as a little bit of criticism. 

As you point out the different areas that need insulation and everything else, it probably would be good just for the average citizen 

to have some idea what it is going to cost—you know, how much 

does it cost to put a wrap around your hot water heater—because 

if we are talking about the clients that we are trying to help the 

most, they are going to get a flyer like that, and they are going to 

say, ‘‘I cannot afford it,’’ even though, you know, the different companies are helping them to get to that point. 

But I am talking also about the average citizen. You have no 

idea what it is going to cost to insulate this. I did not know. I 

thought I had good insulation. I saw one of your flyers. If I can see 

the wood beams on the floor, I do not have enough insulation. Well, 

I do not have enough insulation. So I think that might be a good 

74

idea just for the regular consumer. So, hopefully, you will make 

more money so you can help those that we need to help. 

But, Mr. Caruso, I had the pleasure of going to India and China 

and, obviously, the growth there is unbelievable, and so I am looking at the energy crisis as very long term because, as we see undeveloped countries from when I was a young person to being developing countries now, more and more resources are going to be used. 

And so I do believe that this nation—and I did live through the 

1970s when we had the crisis and the long lines and the complaining when I think the gas went up to, what, 75 cents, if you 

could find gas, and here we are going through a crisis again, and 

then—you know, maybe the government or most people do not feel 

that way, but, you know, when you are spending $50 a week to fill 

up your tank versus what you used to spend, that is going to pull 

back, you know, whether someone is not going to go shopping or 

Christmas is going to be a little bit tighter this year because people 

are nervous out there. The average person is nervous because they 

do not understand everything. 

So I think if there is anything that happens long term, it is going 

to affect, again, the clients that we are looking to help, whether it 

is heating them, feeding them and certainly making sure that children can grow up to be productive citizens to keep our whole economy going. I mean, that is what we should be looking at, the future 

for our young people. 

So if you could kind of give us a little outlay on what you see 

for the future in your crystal ball, you know, and what this country 

is going to face, I think the country is strong enough to understand 

that we need to do a lot more, and I think everybody realizes it 

nowadays, but somehow we have to push it a little bit more. 

Mr. CARUSO. Yes. Our long-term projections are for higher real 

energy prices, particularly oil and natural gas, and a lot of that upward pressure on price is the result of strong growth in places like 

China and India. I mean, they are really going to lead the energy 

future markets as we project out 20, 30 years. 

Now, clearly, that is good news because it means there is a growing global economy. On the other hand, as Mr. Manning has pointed out and Mr. Platts’ question implied, we need to look at all 

sources of energy, including efficiency. That is a source of energy 

by reducing waste. 

And, therefore, as you point out, this sounds like an energy committee, but, indeed, the issues you are dealing with here are directly related to that, and I think we need to think of it in terms 

of the broad picture and specifically with regard to access to—and 

I know it is controversial—East and West Coast resources, oil and 

natural gas, whatever that number is. I agree with Mr. Manning 

it is hard to say, but whatever the number is that is not being developed in our own country, that will have to be imported. 

So, if you do not find and develop new natural gas—let us say 

it used to be close to the United States—for every thousand cubic 

feet, we will be importing most likely liquefied natural gas and 

most likely from the Middle East or perhaps, you know, Nigeria or 

Russia. So, in terms of security of supply and the economics of it, 

I think we need to think of this in the broadest way, including how 

energy relates to the issues of your own committee. 

75

So I absolutely agree with you, Madam Chairwoman, that there 

is a complete linkage between what we are doing, in my case the 

Energy Information Administration, and what the other panelists 

here are doing in serving their clients. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Let me just go with a follow up, and, 

Mr. Manning, you can jump in on it. 

I had the pleasure of going to a large corporation on the island 

that had been using fuel cells, and, obviously, they are very expensive to, number one, put the program together, but, you know, at 

this point now, they are actually going to be getting new fuel cells 

because the price has dropped down dramatically. So, with that, I 

happen to look forward to hopefully research and development 

where there is clean coal, hopefully that this nation can be independent down the road—I know it is not going to be in my generation, but down the road—so that we can do a better job. 

But even with Mr. Manning on helping certainly constituents on 

Long Island, upstate New York and in the Northeast—and, again, 

it is not our committee because I happen to be one of those people 

that do believe that if we do not look at everything, we are not 

going to survive down the road, and so, with that—and, again, this 

is not our committee, but it does have to do with helping our constituents that need the most help. 

Even having a tax credit—even though you were doing well and 

you are helping our constituents and I appreciate that, would it be 

more conducive to even have some sort of credit because you are 

reaching out, and would that raise money to be able to help the 

constituents that we have, whether it is weatherization, which 

would fit in perfectly——

Mr. MANNING. Yes, it would. If you look to the quiver of the federal government, that would certainly be one of the opportunities 

that you can have access to, and it certainly would, obviously, encourage the utilities. We are looking at a number of opportunities 

to drive energy efficiency, including decoupling. 

There are ways to break that relationship between the volume of 

energy that you sell and the way you compensate the company. 

Those are all opportunities. But, certainly, taxation has proven to 

be a very effective carrot as well and particularly when it is focused. So I would encourage that review. 

Mr. SWANSON. If I might add, I think it is an excellent concept. 

The housing nonprofits in this country have had the benefit of 

working with a federal low-income housing tax credit, which today 

produces 120,000 units a year. It is, in fact, the driving force behind affordable housing, the business that I am in. It took time to 

develop it, but, you know, the investments come from banks, from 

major corporations, from investing in credits. 

About 75 percent of the cost of the housing is actually paid for 

by the credit investment. The rest of it is in public resources and 

private loans. I think a similar bold concept related to energy and 

even cash assistance is very workable, and there is a whole industry out there that is now built and thriving around a tax credit in 

housing. 

Ms. BARLOW. I think tax credits are an excellent, but, once again, 

we really have to publicize and make people aware of it. The 

earned income tax credit that would benefit so many people is left 

76

on the table by many, many individuals. So, again, if we had something like that, we would have to get the word out and make sure 

people know how it would benefit them, but I think it is certainly 

something worthwhile to pursue. 

Mr. WOLFE. I think that—I mean, I agree with everyone—the 

LIHEAP really works well the way it is. Only 10 percent goes for 

admin. The low-income housing tax credit—there are quite a few 

middle men that take, you know, 10 to 20 percent right off the top 

in terms of trying to move it from the credit to banks to investors. 

LIHEAP is really designed to get money out to people right way. 

In a sense, it is more complementary to, say, food stamps, and I 

think we need to think about that as an income support program. 

Yes, it pays for energy, but it also helps support income, and I 

think the related piece to that is going to be how it ties to the 

earned income tax credit, is there is no federal program to help 

with gasoline, and millions of working families this winter are not 

just going to see higher energy bills to heat their home, but to 

drive to work. 

So we are really looking at almost a second shoe that is going 

to fall, and I think, as I have sort of listened to everyone talk, I 

think that is the real problem that poor people are facing this winter, higher costs to go to work as well as higher costs to heat their 

home, and that is, I think, what we are worried about. And the 

only program we have to help people with their energy bill is 

LIHEAP, and I think if that is strengthened, that could help mitigate some of the problems with gasoline. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. With that, Mr. Wolfe—and I am not 

going to go into another subject because that is a transportation 

problem. I know on Long Island, for my working poor, there is no 

way to go north and south. It is by buses. So that is even another 

subject. We probably could sit here all day and, you know, maybe 

by the end of the session, we could actually have some answers. 

Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

AS a practical matter, behavior modification is costly when it 

comes to homes and families. According to the company Energy 

Star, if every American were to replace one regular light bulb with 

a fluorescent bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 

3 million homes a year. The initial cost of fluorescent bulbs may 

be more expensive than your average bulb, though the payoff would 

be greater in terms of the energy efficiency savings. 

I want to ask what can this committee do to alleviate the initial 

economic strain on energy efficient living for working-class and 

low-income families, and I want to just sort of touch on the topic 

that Madam Chair just raised and combine that with something 

that Mr. Platts talked about, and that is the issue of renters, and 

I want to add to that the factor of aged housing stock and absentee 

landlords. 

Do you believe that a weatherization incentive in the form of a 

tax abatement could target those particular home environments? 

That is for everybody. 

Mr. MANNING. I think we are on to something, Madam Chair, 

and I think the opportunity, Congresswoman Clarke, is to look at 

some of the existing programs which are functioning now, such as 

77

the one that my friend lives and breathes with, and see if we cannot take that model and that structure and turn our attention to 

that kind of weatherization and those kind of enhancements. Your 

comment with respect to the upfront cost and the opportunity for 

light bulbs, that is an excellent example, particularly as just, you 

know, the compact fluorescents have come down dramatically in 

price in the last 5 years. 

There are more opportunities for what we call compact or distributed generation, micro-combined heat and power, some of these 

technologies where right now they are just now affordable for those 

who can afford it. Ultimately, they will come down in price, and 

they will start to become part of the solution, if, in fact, you can 

adjust the system. 

So there may be an opportunity for us to collaborate and have 

a look at some of those structural models and try and address the 

specific questions you have asked. 

Mr. SWANSON. Thank you for reminding me what Congressman 

Platts’ second question was, what do you do about rental situations, and we already do conservation in rental situations. It is 

easier to structure when, in fact, the landlord is paying the energy 

bill. The landlord is, therefore, motivated to conserve, and it can 

have the benefit of keeping rents down. It is more complex when—

I said it the other way around—the tenants pay, but it is easier 

to set a benefit there. 

When the landlord, in fact, has the opportunity to absorb that 

benefit, then we actually ask them to make the investments. As 

you know, my main line business is working with affordable housing. We work with a lot of private landlords, and, you know, many 

of them are motivated because when they look at the trends and 

future projections of energy costs, they probably assume scenarios 

far worse than Mr. Caruso would paint. 

They tend to look at 1-year increments and then multiply them 

by 10 years and assume that their energy bill is going to be 250 

percent larger in a short period of time, and so they more than 

anything understand that there is a limit to what their tenants can 

afford, all right. It does not do any good to charge tenants for rents 

that you cannot collect, okay. And that is what we are talking 

about here. 

So I think you see a mix of different benefits there. We already 

do that in a modest way, and, again, with the right investments, 

you can structure it so it makes some sense. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BARLOW. I think what is difficult for people who are cash 

poor is to understand the concept that spend more now, and you 

will be able to save later, and that really relates to what Mr. Wolfe 

said, and that is the problem with the tax abatements, very, very 

difficult to get that concept across, even though it would benefit 

them. So it is kind of a negative answer. I do not have an alternative answer, but that is my reaction. 

Mr. WOLFE. One thing to add is 40 percent of all low-income families own their own home. You know, nationally I think it is about 

65 percent, and we have a program with the Ford Foundation. We 

have pilot sites in 12 cities. We actually had one on Long Island, 

with CDC on Long Island, where you looked at using weatherizaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:08 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-72\38722.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
78

tion as the base, not just energy efficiency and helping save bills, 

but you can also see it as a program that can help strengthen lowincome home ownership. 

We brought together HUD programs with weatherization with 

state funds, and what we saw was that many families had a set 

of common problems—many families that own homes—high energy 

bills, homes that were in need of repair, and high interest rate 

mortgages, and it all comes together. You know, in some ways, you 

can think of subprime lending as an issue over there and HUD programs as an issue over there and weatherization over here and energy assistance, but when you put them together, you can really 

make a terrific difference in a family’s life. 

And that is what we saw in our pilot programs, that, yes, these 

programs are underfunded. There is no question there is not 

enough money, but they really can work and do terrific things to 

help families, and we saw that in each of our pilot sites, and I 

think what we are trying to get at is: Is there a way to use federal 

and state monies to strengthen low-income home ownership? And 

I think the answer is ‘‘yes,’’ that if you think of weatherization and 

energy assistance as a key piece of that solution, then I think all 

else follows. 

And you see that, yes, of course, this program should be funded 

better and, of course, I think it helps to strengthen those families 

because they are all struggling to retain home ownership. These 

are families who live paycheck to paycheck. How they got their 

first house is a miracle sort of thing. It is the only asset they have. 

It is how they grow assets over their life. And we can use weatherization as a way to give them a helping hand to kind of strengthen 

their ability to keep and maintain their home. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. I want to thank all of you for coming 

here and testifying today. I think we have learned an awful lot. We 

have covered an awful lot of subjects. But, again, it is how are we 

going to do a better job on taking care of our constituents to make 

sure that they have heat? 

You have heard me mention before my background is a nurse, so 

I believe holistically, and, unfortunately, Ms. Barlow, you hit it 

right on the head because Congress does not see sometimes that 

by spending a little money, we can save a lot of money in the end, 

and that could be for health care, that could be for education, that 

could be almost every single subject that you want to, you know, 

cover there. 

So I thank you for your insight, but, again, it is unacceptable 

that over a million households lost use of critical utilities last year. 

We must work together to make sure this program gets the funds 

it needs. We want local program administrators like you, Ms. Barlow, to retain the dedicated staff such as the people you talked 

about. We need to strengthen public-private partnerships and help 

states to find ways to work with companies to increase the reach 

of LIHEAP without lowering the benefits of LIHEAP. 

I want to again thank each and every one of you. I would love 

to have a committee hearing with Charlie Rangel for the tax area, 

Financial Services, Mr. Swanson, because we are actually doing a 

lot on housing, and we want to look at how we are rebuilding or 

79

renovating the apartments that so many of our low-income families 

are in. 

I live in an apartment building right here, and you have to open 

the windows in the winter even though I do not have the heat on. 

I never put the heat on in my apartment, but, last year, they decided to put in brand-new windows. At least now during the summer, I do not have to raise the air conditioning all the way up because it actually stays cool. So there is money to be saved. 

As previously ordered, members will have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any member who wishes 

to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within the requested time. 

[Additional submission from Chairwoman McCarthy follows:]


nass.eps
80

Without objection, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very 

much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ