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: Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: people who are low-income or have a high energy burden
Estimated Size: 130000000
- The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) primarily supports households that are considered low-income.
- The bill expands eligibility for energy assistance to households earning up to 250% of the federal poverty line, significantly increasing the number of households eligible.
- A sizeable portion of the U.S. population is low-income or near-low-income, which aligns with the adjusted eligibility criteria, including a focus on energy burden.
- This bill targets households experiencing high energy burdens, which is a common issue in extreme weather regions (e.g., with high heating or cooling needs).
Reasoning
- The Heating and Cooling Relief Act targets exclusively low-income households, especially those with a significant energy burden. By expanding eligibility criteria, it will reach more families in need, especially in states with extreme climates where energy consumption is high.
- The assistance will likely improve the Cantril wellbeing scores for those who face financial constraints due to high energy costs. They will experience reduced stress and improved living conditions.
- The impact on Cantril scores will vary: low-income households will see more significant improvements as part of the direct target demographic, whereas wealthier households will see little to no change.
- The policy may indirectly benefit regions with high energy cost burdens by increasing overall economic activity as recipients use freed-up finances for other expenses.
- Consideration of varying climates in the U.S. is essential as some areas experience drastic temperatures necessitating high energy use.
Simulated Interviews
Retail worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved to see changes that might help reduce my bills. The Arizona summers are brutal and expensive when it comes to energy costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired (Rural Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree with a fixed income, any help with heating costs during Iowa's cold winters is welcome. It's tough on my budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Nurse (New York City)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect much impact from the policy since my income is slightly above the new thresholds. However, measures to reduce energy dependence are crucial for the environment.
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 |
Freelance graphic designer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should help manage energy costs, especially during the hot summers when my bills are typically higher.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
School teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While assistance is great for many, it won't help my situation much since we're just above eligibility. The focus on sustainable energy is beneficial.
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 |
Part-time consultant (Detroit, MI)
Age: 62 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing energy costs will ease the financial strain significantly and helps me focus on other essentials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in cooling costs during hot Florida summers will relieve some of my financial pressure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected but support initiatives focused on energy alternatives and sustainability.
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 |
Construction worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Aid with heating costs is going to make a cold winter more bearable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Chef (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy aiding in reducing overheads related to energy will benefit businesses indirectly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7500000000 (Low: $6500000000, High: $8500000000)
Year 2: $7650000000 (Low: $6650000000, High: $8650000000)
Year 3: $7800000000 (Low: $6800000000, High: $8800000000)
Year 5: $8100000000 (Low: $7100000000, High: $9100000000)
Year 10: $8700000000 (Low: $7700000000, High: $9700000000)
Year 100: $12000000000 (Low: $11000000000, High: $13000000000)
Key Considerations
- Expansion of benefits will help more low-income households manage their energy costs, which can be significant, especially in regions with extreme weather.
- Administrative costs and implementation logistics will require strategic planning at both state and federal levels.
- The emphasis on reducing fossil fuel energy use aligns with broader environmental goals and policies, but it requires significant upfront investments.