HR-10588-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Chris Pappas (D-NH)
What it does
For fiscal year 2027 only, the bill would allow a State to use its Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) grant to make energy assistance payments to households with incomes up to 75 percent of the State median income. This applies despite the existing income ceiling in the LIHEAP statute. The text says a State "may" do this, so it is optional, and it does not add any new funding. "State," "State median income," and "household" keep their existing LIHEAP meanings.
Who benefits
Households with incomes above the current LIHEAP ceiling but at or below 75 percent of State median income, if their State chooses to cover them. Utilities and fuel suppliers may see fewer unpaid bills from newly eligible customers. State LIHEAP offices gain flexibility to set eligibility to fit local energy costs in high-cost states.
Who is hurt
Lower-income households already eligible could receive smaller benefits or face longer waits if a State spreads fixed grant dollars across more applicants. State agencies may bear added administrative work to verify income and process more applications. Because no new money is provided, taxpayers do not pay more directly, but those at the lowest incomes may be competing with a larger pool for the same funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that rising heating and cooling bills strain moderate-income households that earn too much for LIHEAP yet still struggle to pay utilities. They contend the bill is optional and limited to one fiscal year, so each State can decide whether to widen eligibility based on its own energy costs and incomes. They also note that tying the ceiling to State median income reflects regional cost differences better than a single national standard.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that LIHEAP already reaches only a fraction of eligible households, so widening eligibility without added appropriations would dilute aid for the poorest families. They contend the bill shifts the program away from its focus on the lowest-income households, raising a 75 percent of median ceiling that covers many middle-income families. They also note that states would carry added administrative burdens and that a one-year change creates uncertainty for program planning.
Constitutional context
Congress funds this grant program under its Spending Clause power (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1), and conditions on state use of federal grants are generally permitted if clearly stated, as in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Because the bill only gives states an option and does not compel them, it raises no commandeering problem.
Checks and balances
Congress adjusts the eligibility rule for one year, HHS continues to administer the grants, and each State decides whether to use the wider ceiling, while Congress retains control over appropriation levels.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously made temporary changes to LIHEAP through appropriations and relief laws, such as the large one-time funding increases in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, though those added money rather than only changing eligibility.