Bill Overview
Title: Heating and Cooling Relief Act
Description: This bill provides additional energy assistance to households, including heating and cooling assistance. Specifically, the bill reauthorizes through FY2031 and revises the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Under the existing program, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may award grants to states for assisting low-income households that pay a high proportion of their income for home energy. To be eligible under the existing program, households must have incomes which do not exceed the greater of an amount equal to 150% of the poverty level for their state or an amount equal to 60% of the state median income. The bill expands eligibility to households with incomes which do not exceed the greater of an amount equal to 250% of the poverty line as defined in the Community Services Block Grant Act or an amount equal to 80% of the state median income. In addition, the bill expands eligibility to households with a monthly energy burden of 3% or more per year. It also requires states to establish procedures to protect households receiving assistance under the program from energy shutoffs and certain late fees. In addition, the bill requires HHS and the Department of Energy to jointly carry out a program that awards grants to states and local governments for developing and implementing interagency plans to reduce energy burdens for eligible households with high home energy use. The plans must promote the reduction of energy from fossil fuels.
Sponsors: Rep. Bowman, Jamaal [D-NY-16]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in low-income households facing high energy costs
Estimated Size: 50000000
- Low-income households spend a large portion of their income on energy costs, which this bill specifically targets.
- By expanding eligibility to households earning up to 250% of the poverty line or 80% of the state median income, a larger portion of the population is able to benefit from this legislation.
- The bill's measures to prevent energy shutoffs and eliminate late fees offer significant protection to economically vulnerable families.
- Globally, many countries have similar programs aimed at assisting low-income individuals with energy costs, benefitting millions of households.
Reasoning
- To assess the policy impact, we consider various demographic factors and geographical diversity, as energy costs and income levels vary significantly across the US.
- We selected a range of perspectives including low-income families, individuals living just above the poverty line, working middle class, retirees, and residents of different states with varying climates.
- The policy is focused on direct financial assistance to households struggling with energy costs, potentially providing immediate relief and improving mental and physical wellbeing.
- Given the budget constraints and target population size, not everyone will experience high or medium impact, especially those not meeting expanded eligibility criteria or living in states with lower energy costs.
- For those meeting the criteria, the policy will likely reduce financial stress, improve housing conditions, and prevent energy shutoffs, enhancing overall living conditions.
Simulated Interviews
Single mother, part-time retail employee (Detroit, MI)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides some needed relief as energy costs have been a big worry during winter months.
- Not having to worry about shutoffs will let me allocate money for other essentials like groceries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Construction worker (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been a struggle to keep up with electricity bills, especially during summer.
- This policy would definitely ease our monthly budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I live on a fixed income and energy bills are my biggest expense after medication.
- Policy support would be very helpful, especially in the summer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Freelance artist (New York, NY)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Energy bills are not my primary concern, rent is the biggest issue.
- I'm unlikely to benefit directly, but programs targeting such assistance are positive overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
IT Consultant (Dallas, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My home is energy efficient, and I don’t face energy bill pressures.
- It's great policy support for those who need it, but doesn't impact me directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Part-time janitor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every winter is a fight to stay warm while managing my other expenses.
- The relief will be immensely beneficial, allowing more room for essentials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Restaurant owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business expenses overshadow home energy costs.
- Good for families under state assistance but won't change my situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Teacher (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our heating bills are quite high relative to income.
- The additional support could definitely help balance our budgeting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My parents cover most costs, energy is included in the dorm fees so I don't feel direct pressure from energy costs.
- The initiative is helpful for others but won't affect my wellbeing directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The summer cooling bill is a major worry given the hot climate.
- Support would provide significant relief, reducing stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
---|---|---|
Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3200000000 (Low: $3000000000, High: $3500000000)
Year 2: $3300000000 (Low: $3100000000, High: $3600000000)
Year 3: $3400000000 (Low: $3200000000, High: $3700000000)
Year 5: $3600000000 (Low: $3400000000, High: $3900000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring sufficient administrative capacity at state and local levels to expand and monitor the program effectively.
- Impact on government debt levels due to increased expenditure without corresponding immediate savings.
- Long-term environmental benefits due to decreased reliance on fossil fuels, although these impacts may be difficult to quantify immediately.
- Potential challenges in coordinating federal, state, and local efforts to implement energy reduction strategies.