Heating and Cooling Relief Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 31, 2025
Bottom line
The Heating and Cooling Relief Act aims to make home energy more affordable and resilient for low-income households by expanding federal assistance, imposing new utility regulations, and integrating climate adaptation strategies.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands and reforms the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), renaming it the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP). It increases funding authorizations, broadens eligibility criteria to include more low- and moderate-income households, and mandates new protections against utility shutoffs and late fees. The bill also integrates climate resilience and decarbonization goals into energy assistance and weatherization efforts, requiring states to develop plans for extreme heat and housing retrofits, and establishes a new 'Just Transition Grants' program.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical response to the escalating energy burden on low-income households, exacerbated by climate change and rising utility costs. They contend it will prevent homelessness, reduce health risks from extreme temperatures, and ensure a robust social safety net. Furthermore, supporters highlight the bill's focus on energy efficiency, decarbonization, and renewable energy as essential steps towards climate resilience and meeting national clean energy goals.
Opponents contend
Critics may argue that the bill's significant expansion of federal spending, particularly the open-ended 'such sums as may be necessary' authorizations, could lead to unchecked fiscal burdens. Concerns might also be raised about the federal government imposing mandates on utility companies regarding late fees, shutoffs, and affordability programs, potentially increasing operational costs for providers which could be passed on to other customers or disincentivize private investment. Some may also question the feasibility and administrative complexity of implementing the extensive new requirements for states and agencies.
The bill is moderately complex due to numerous amendments to existing law and detailed new requirements, requiring careful reading to understand its full scope. The estimated reading time is appropriate for its length and density.
Section 3, amending 42 U.S.C. 8621
Increased Funding and Emergency Allotments for LIHEAP/HEAP
This provision significantly increases the authorized funding for the Home Energy Assistance Program (formerly LIHEAP) to 'such sums as may be necessary' for regular assistance and home energy affordability measures. It also boosts emergency contingency funds to $2 billion for fiscal year 2026 and 'such additional sums as may be necessary' thereafter, specifically including major disasters like extreme heat or cold. Additionally, it authorizes $1 billion annually for new 'Just Transition Grants'.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that current LIHEAP funding is insufficient to meet the needs of eligible households, with only a small fraction receiving assistance. This increased authorization is crucial to address the growing energy affordability crisis and the impacts of climate change, ensuring more families can afford essential heating and cooling.
Critics contend
Critics may express concern over the 'such sums as may be necessary' language, arguing it lacks fiscal discipline and could lead to unpredictable and potentially excessive federal spending without clear budgetary caps.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the urgent need for increased energy assistance with concerns about the long-term fiscal implications of open-ended authorizations.
Section 5, amending 42 U.S.C. 8623(e)
Expanded Emergency Assistance for Extreme Heat and Cold
This section expands the definition of 'major disaster' to explicitly include periods of extreme heat or extreme cold, as determined by the Secretary. It mandates that the Secretary and FEMA Administrator provide heating or cooling assistance to eligible households in areas affected by such disasters. States receiving this assistance must assure they will not preclude households from receiving both heating and cooling assistance in the same year, will not require a medical need for eligibility, and will allow assistance for energy-efficient air conditioners and other cooling equipment.
Section 6, amending 42 U.S.C. 8624(b) and (c)
Expanded Eligibility and Simplified Enrollment
This section raises the income eligibility threshold for HEAP to the greater of 250% of the poverty level or 80% of the State median income. It mandates that states prioritize households with the highest energy burdens and lowest incomes, and explicitly prohibits excluding households based on the citizenship of household members. It also requires states to use data sharing with other low-income assistance programs, implement simplified re-enrollment for fixed-income households, and allow applicants to self-attest eligibility when other verification methods are not applicable, to minimize administrative burdens.
Section 7, amending 42 U.S.C. 8624(b)
New Conditions for Home Energy Suppliers and State Programs
This section imposes several new conditions on home energy suppliers that receive HEAP funds. These include prohibiting late fees for 6 months before and after receiving HEAP funds for a household, banning shutoffs for 2 years after a household receives assistance, requiring data sharing with states for coordinated outreach, and mandating that suppliers include HEAP information with late payment notices. Crucially, it requires suppliers, in partnership with states, to offer a low-income energy affordability payment program within two years. States are also required to increase the portion of funds used for administrative activities to 15% (from 10%) and use the increase to operate programs year-round, enable online applications, pay HEAP coordinators at least $15/hour or local minimum wage, and explore auto-enrollment.
Section 7, amending 42 U.S.C. 8624(q), (r), (s), (t)
Climate Resilience and Housing Retrofit Mandates for States
This section requires states to develop and update action plans for periods of extreme heat, detailing how HEAP funds will be used for cooling costs and mitigating heat-related health risks. It mandates a review of eligibility criteria to include additional vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, individuals with medical conditions exacerbated by heat). States' energy offices, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, must develop plans to retrofit low-income housing for climate adaptation, including deploying efficient cooling systems (like heat pumps), expanding weatherization, addressing environmental hazards (mold, lead), and ensuring electrical upgrades. These plans must also assess and adapt existing shutoff policies to protect households while considering grid reliability. Finally, it requires a report to Congress on safe residential temperature standards for federally assisted dwelling units.
Section 8, amending 42 U.S.C. 8624(k)
Increased Weatherization Funding and Decarbonization Focus
This provision increases the maximum percentage of HEAP funds that states can use for weatherization and energy-related home repairs. It raises the general weatherization cap from 15% to 25% of a state's allotment. Within that, it increases the portion specifically for energy-related home repair from 25% to 35% of the weatherization funds, with a strong emphasis on reducing dependence on fossil fuels, facilitating community solar, and prioritizing appliance replacement with electric heating/cooling technology powered by renewable energy.
Section 11, inserting new 42 U.S.C. 8626c
HEAP Just Transition Grants Program
This section establishes a new 3-year grant program, jointly administered by the Secretaries of HHS and Energy, for states and local governments. These grants will support interagency plans to reduce energy burdens for eligible households with high energy use, specifically promoting a 'just transition' away from fossil fuel energy and protecting households from climate change threats. Preferences are given to applicants that identify high-energy-use households, prioritize the highest energy burdens for emergency repair, weatherization, and retrofit assistance (leading to decarbonization), and partner with workforce development initiatives, unions, or minority/women-owned businesses.
Allows applicants to self-attest eligibility for HEAP assistance if data sharing or simplified re-enrollment processes do not apply, to facilitate access and prevent undue hardship.
Section 6(c)(1)(A)(i)(IV), amending 42 U.S.C. 8624(c)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutory language, where new conditions are inserted into a list of existing requirements rather than being presented as a standalone section.
Case for: Proponents argue that self-attestation is vital for reducing administrative barriers, especially for vulnerable populations who may lack documentation or face challenges navigating complex application processes, thereby increasing program access and preventing hardship.
Case against: Critics might express concerns that self-attestation could increase the risk of fraud or improper payments, though the bill specifies it applies only when other verification methods are not available.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant increase in program participation by reducing application hurdles for thousands of eligible households.
Requires home energy suppliers, in return for receiving HEAP funds and through a partnership with the State, to offer a low-income energy affordability payment program not later than 2 years after enactment.
Section 7(b)(8)(H), amending 42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(8)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to embed new requirements within existing frameworks, making them conditions for receiving federal funds rather than standalone regulatory impositions.
Case for: Proponents argue that mandating affordability programs is crucial to address the systemic issue of high energy burdens for low-income households, ensuring long-term, sustainable relief beyond one-time assistance payments.
Case against: Utility companies may argue that this constitutes an unfunded mandate or an undue regulatory burden, potentially impacting their financial models and requiring significant operational changes, which could ultimately affect all ratepayers.
Estimated impact: Could fundamentally change how utilities interact with low-income customers, potentially leading to widespread adoption of income-based payment plans across states.
Prohibits any home energy supplier receiving HEAP funds from recovering arrearage assistance costs through rate increases or other charges to customers, including cost recovery mechanisms that disproportionately impact low-income households.
Section 9(2), amending 42 U.S.C. 8624(u)
Why it matters:This provision is a specific detail related to how arrearage assistance is handled, making its placement within the arrears data collection section logical from a structural standpoint, though it has broader financial implications.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents utilities from effectively double-dipping or shifting the burden of arrearage assistance onto other ratepayers, ensuring that federal funds truly benefit low-income households without indirect cost increases.
Case against: Utility companies might argue that this restriction limits their ability to recover legitimate costs associated with providing service and managing arrears, potentially impacting their financial stability or ability to invest in infrastructure.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential cost-shifting by utilities, ensuring that the federal investment in arrearage assistance directly benefits the intended recipients without indirect burdens on other ratepayers.