Linking LIHEAP with Ratepayer-Funded Programs

To determine program integration, it is necessary to identify those points where program linkages can occur with the existing energy assistance and/or weatherization program. A linkage occurs when there is an overlap between programs. For example, a system benefits charge program uses the same eligibility criteria, or uses the same local organizations to do outreach and intake. To identify those points of overlap, those linkages, tables are set forth below for ten states (Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin).

The points of overlap tracked in the tables below were developed in a LIHEAP symposium attended by various state program directors, technical consultants, and other administrators of low-income energy assistance programs. The final report from that symposium is set forth in Appendix B.

Reading the Tables

In general there is no right or wrong approach to linkages and integration. Clearly, however, a state with lots of no's or yes's in their respective table indicates a consistency of approach.

A close up of Ohio, for example, reveals that it has 18 yes's and 9 nos. It has consistent linkage on oversight, delivery and administration. That may be because the Ohio LIHEAP and weatherization programs are under the same department administratively. This has transferred through to the public benefits administration. Interestingly, the Ohio Department of Development (DOD), which operates LIHEAP in Ohio, was represented in the pre-restructuring legislative debate, which helped get the LIHEAP/WAP administering agency named the administrator of the public benefits fund as well.

By contrast, Pennsylvania has virtually no linkages on the funding, oversight, delivery or administration front. Historically, utilities have operated low-income programs in Pennsylvania with oversight by the state PUC. The departments that handle LIHEAP and weatherization are separate and community action agencies are not involved in LIHEAP administration, although some are involved in weatherization administration. In an order implementing the state's universal service programs, the PUC said that that utilities themselves should continue to administer their programs, while relying on community-based organizations to the extent practicable for actual program delivery.

The Data in the Tables

The data in the attached tables was obtained through interviews with LIHEAP administrators as well as a review of the operating documents of programs funded through system benefit charge revenues. Program linkages (or lack of linkages) were examined in each of the following program areas:

Linkages can occur in one or more of the above program areas. Linkages in one area do not necessarily imply that there are linkages in other program areas (let alone in all areas).

The following table is a summary table. Please see individual states for important explanatory notes.

   

Linkages Between LIHEAP and Ratepayer-Funded Energy Assistance Programs

 

Illinois

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

Wisconsin

ALIGN="LEFT">Funding

1

Do annual SBC dollars directly go up/down based on the level of LIHEAP dollars?

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

2

Do SBC benefit levels directly go up/down based on the LIHEAP benefit provided?

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

3

Does LIHEAP/WAP determine the allocation between program components?

Yes

N/A

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

4

Do LIHEAP benefits go up/down depending on the level of the SBC benefit.?

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Oversight

1

Does LIHEAP/WAP set the size of the overall budget?

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

2

Does LIHEAP do the program evaluation for SBC expenditures?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

3

Does the LIHEAP office audit whether utilities make correct SBC payments?

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

4

Does LIHEAP provide the daily staffing for SBC program administration?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

5

Does LIHEAP do data collection on SBC recipients?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Administration

1

Are there explicit differences in SBC and LIHEAP eligibility?

No

No

No

Yes

Changes

No

No

Yes

Maybe

No

2

Are there explicit differences in the energy bill paid by SBC and LIHEAP?

No

Yes

Yes

Some

Yes

Yes

No

Some

No

Yes

3

Does LIHEAP set the amount of the SBC benefit?

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No.

Yes

No

No

Yes

4

Does LIHEAP/WAP promulgate SBC program rules?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

5

Does LIHEAP provide the computer connection between utilities and the SBC program?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

None

Yes

6

Is SBC administration centralized at the state level?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Outreach

1

Does receiving LIHEAP automatically enroll a consumer to receive SBC?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

2

Can a household receive SBC without receiving LIHEAP?

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3

Are there explicit differences in the target population for SBC and LIHEAP?

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

4

Does LIHEAP provide consumer outreach unique to the SBC program?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Not Applicable

No

Delivery

1

Do all SBC recipients also receive LIHEAP?

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

2

All application forms for LIHEAP and SBC the same (WAP and SBC)?

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

3

Are time periods within which consumers may apply for LIHEAP and SBC the same?

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

4

Are intake agencies identical for SBC and LIHEAP?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

5

Do LIHEAP pay SBC benefits directly to the consumer or to utility on consumer's behalf?

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

6

Does LIHEAP provide notices of the need for periodic income recertification?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Important Note:
This is a summary table. Please see individual states for important explanatory notes.

Return to Table of Contents