Volume 13, Number 11 March 14, 2006 CAP-FACTS. Important Legislative Developments Provided to You by The National Community Action Foundation

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Volume 13, Number 11 March 14, 2006 CAP-FACTS. Important Legislative Developments Provided to You by The National Community Action Foundation"

Geoffrey Ward
5 years ago
Views:

1 Volume 13, Number 11 March 14, 2006 CAP-FACTS Important Legislative Developments Provided to You by Energy Update and Action Items Weatherization Budget Cuts in FY 2007 Please call your Representative s office and ask them to sign on to the Sanders-Boehlert-Grijalva letter to House Appropriators opposing the proposed cut in Weatherization funding in the President s FY 2007 Budget and supporting level funding ($242 million) for the program. Please act before close of business on Wednesday; Members will leave town Thursday for the upcoming Congressional recess and must decide before leaving. The letter that went to all offices and the accompanying cover letter is attached. It is initiated by Congressmen Sanders (I-Vt), Boehlert (R-NY) and Grijalva (D-AZ). The 54 current signers are listed so CAAs serving their districts do not need to call - just a thank you through their website. Also attached is our table showing the proposed WAP cut for your state. Both appear after the LIHEAP section below. Current signers of Sanders-Boehlert-Grijalva Weatherization letter: Sanders (I-VT Boehlert (R-NY) Grijalva (D-AZ) Andrews (D-NJ) Bass (R-NH) Blumenauer (D-OR) Boswell (D-IA) Boucher (D-VA) Brown (D-OH) Clay (D-MO) Cleaver (D-MO) Conyers (D-MI) Cummings (D-MD) Doyle (D-PA) Evans (D-IL) Higgins (D-NY) Hinchey (D-NY) Holden (D-PA) Holt (D-NJ) Hooley (D-OR) Israel (D-NY) Kildee (D-MI) Kucinich (D-OH) Langevin (D-RI) Larson (D-CT) Levin (D-MI) Lewis (D-GA) Lipinski (D-IL) Lynch (D-MA) Maloney (D-NY) Markey (D-MA) McCarthy (D-NY) McCollum (D-MN) McDermott (D-WA) McGovern (D-MA) Michaud (D-ME) Moran (D-VA) Nadler (D-NY) Neal (D-MA) Ney (R-OH) Oberstar (D-MN) Owens (D-NY) Pallone (D-NJ) Payne (D-NJ) Peterson (D-MN) Pomeroy (D-ND) Rangel (D-NY) Ruppersberger (D-MD) Schakowsky (D-IL) Schwartz (D-PA) Skelton (D-MO) Stupak (D-MI) Upton (D-MI) Van Hollen (D-MA) LIHEAP Supplement Update The Senate passed S.2320, the Snowe-Collins-Coleman-Dodd LIHEAP funding bill, on March 7, ending a long battle by cold-state Senators who have been offering bills to increase LIHEAP since November of It transfers $1 billion appropriated for FY 2007 to the current fiscal year and splits the $1 billion in half; it provides that one half goes out under the statute s formula which benefits warmer states at this higher spending level, and the other half goes to the President s Contingency Fund with an understanding (with Sen. Snowe) that it will be released soon using a distribution formula that benefits cold states. NCAF supported the compromise split and welcomes the additional LIHEAP funding that we have been asking for all year. We provided information about the negative effects of the ban on the use of funds for administration of the program with Senators and staff, unfortunately to no avail. David Bradley, Executive Director 810 First Street, NE, Suite 530, Washington, DC (202) info@ncaf.org

2 2 CAP-FACTS March 14, 2006 The House Appropriations Committee has reported out an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill that is expected to be voted on the House floor Wednesday or Thursday. It includes a provision offered by Ranking Member Obey (D-WI) adding $750 million in new FY 2006 LIHEAP Emergency Contingency funding, but no formula grants. Members from warmer states are considering offering an amendment; it could either duplicate the Senate-passed language for $1 billion or split the distribution of the $750 million between the regular distribution formula and the Contingency Fund. NCAF will support either or both amendments. The Supplemental Appropriations bill may face challenges in the Senate and will be slowed down further by next week s Congressional District Work period. The House may be asked by its Leadership to consider the Snowe bill in order to expedite relief for LIHEAP. What you can do: Please send NCAF statistics and news items that indicate the ongoing need for assistance and the amount of the need that your LIHEAP or other state resources you may have received can cover. For states with a winter disconnections moratorium, consider generating or adding to press stories about those who could not keep up with all their winter bills. W e need information from warm weather and western states in particular, as we have less material from your area. Send them to megpower@ncaf.org. The following LIHEAP table shows the approximate percentage each state receives under the different distribution formulas applied to different pots of FY 2006 LIHEAP funding. To calculate your state s increase from the $500 million provided for formula grants in the Senate-passed bill, apply the percentages in the right hand column to about $450 million that states will share. If the House appropriates a different level of formula grants than the Senate, do the multiplication using the new appropriation and the correct column to estimate the impact. Caution: the House Supplemental Appropriations bill allows the President to determine whether and how any new funds will be distributed (because all funding will go to the Emergency Contingency Fund). The middle column of the table below is one illustration of a formula used recently, but there is no way to be sure what a future formula will be. National Community Action Foundation Estimated State Share under Alternative LIHEAP Formula Distributions Percent of Regular FY 2006 Program ($1.95 B) Percent of Jan. Pres. Emergency Contingency Distribution ($100 M) Percent of $500 M increase in Senate-passed S.2320 Alabama 0.86% 0.66% 2.92% Alaska 0.55% 0.57% 0.37% Arizona 0.42% 0.26% 1.41% Arkansas 0.66% 0.57% 1.99% California 4.61% 4.45% 12.63% Colorado 1.61% 1.68% 0.07% Connecticut 2.10% 2.31% 1.38% Delaware 0.28% 0.27% 0.95% Dist. Of Col. 0.33% 0.31% 0.30% Florida 1.36% 0.26% 4.62% Georgia 1.08% 0.86% 3.65% Hawaii 0.11% 0.01% 0.09% David Bradley, Executive Director 810 First Street, NE, Suite 530, Washington, DC (202) info@ncaf.org

3 3 CAP-FACTS March 14, 2006 Idaho 0.63% 0.40% 0.43% Illinois 5.81% 6.57% 6.53% Indiana 2.63% 2.66% 0.54% Iowa 1.86% 2.04% 0.08% Kansas 0.86% 0.92% 2.02% Kentucky 1.37% 0.97% 3.53% Louisiana 0.88% 0.66% 2.98% Maine 1.36% 1.60% 0.06% Maryland 1.61% 1.51% 5.45% Massachusetts 4.20% 4.66% 0.19% Michigan 5.51% 6.70% 0.25% Minnesota 3.97% 4.25% 0.18% Mississippi 0.74% 0.62% 2.50% Missouri 2.32% 2.19% 2.86% Montana 0.74% 0.70% 0.50% Nebraska 0.92% 0.98% 0.63% Nevada 0.20% 0.14% 0.66% New Hampshire 0.79% 0.91% 0.54% New Jersey 3.90% 4.54% 0.31% New Mexico 0.52% 0.57% 0.35% New York 12.72% 15.01% 0.57% North Carolina 1.90% 1.28% 6.44% North Dakota 0.80% 0.69% 0.54% Ohio 5.14% 5.44% 4.41% Oklahoma 0.79% 0.76% 2.68% Oregon 1.25% 0.53% 0.06% Pennsylvania 6.84% 7.66% 0.31% Rhode Island 0.69% 0.85% 0.47% South Carolina 0.68% 0.41% 2.32% South Dakota 0.65% 0.63% 0.44% Tennessee 1.39% 0.78% 3.86% Texas 2.26% 1.59% 7.68% Utah 0.75% 0.85% 0.51% Vermont 0.60% 0.68% 0.40% Virginia 1.96% 1.35% 6.64% Washington 2.05% 0.78% 0.09% West Virginia 0.91% 0.73% 1.23% Wisconsin 3.58% 3.88% 0.16% Wyoming 0.30% 0.30% 0.20% David Bradley, Executive Director 810 First Street, NE, Suite 530, Washington, DC (202)

4 NCAF 2/2006 Weatherization Assistance Program Impact of proposed FY 2007 Cuts Estimated FY2007 State Appropriation of: $228,160,000 FY 2005 $241,956,000 FY 2006 $164,198,000 FY 2007 Loss v FY 06 Total Total Total $$ %% State Allocation Allocation Allocation (includes T & TA) Alabama $2,417,993 $2,724,123 $1,723,759 -$1,000,364-37% Alaska $1,687,568 $1,734,314 $1,207,475 -$526,839-30% Arizona $1,364,754 $1,603,527 $979,302 -$624,225-39% Arkansas $2,079,513 $2,202,800 $1,484,514 -$718,286-33% California $6,322,844 $7,085,364 $4,483,810 -$2,601,554-37% Colorado $5,504,036 $5,678,125 $3,905,055 -$1,773,070-31% Connecticut $2,517,795 $2,759,107 $1,794,302 -$964,805-35% Delaware $577,217 $612,727 $422,651 -$190,076-31% DC $651,868 $712,764 $475,416 -$237,348-33% Florida $1,965,864 $2,592,639 $1,404,183 -$1,188,456-46% Georgia $2,940,956 $3,339,105 $2,093,403 -$1,245,702-37% Hawaii $204,993 $234,987 $159,553 -$75,434-32% Idaho $1,982,038 $2,076,784 $1,415,615 -$661,169-32% Illinois $13,910,793 $14,349,500 $9,847,171 -$4,502,329-31% Indiana $6,580,199 $6,762,132 $4,665,716 -$2,096,416-31% Iowa $5,011,292 $5,153,879 $3,556,770 -$1,597,109-31% Kansas $2,541,543 $2,706,214 $1,811,088 -$895,126-33% Kentucky $4,539,785 $4,761,929 $3,223,498 -$1,538,431-32% Louisiana $1,738,815 $1,997,309 $1,243,698 -$753,611-38% Maine $3,081,589 $3,240,063 $2,192,806 -$1,047,257-32% Maryland $2,664,081 $2,897,804 $1,897,701 -$1,000,103-35% Massachusetts $6,577,376 $6,938,192 $4,663,720 -$2,274,472-33% Michigan $15,257,442 $15,446,624 $10,799,017 -$4,647,607-30% Minnesota $9,898,845 $10,154,727 $7,011,422 -$3,143,305-31% Mississippi $1,655,581 $1,850,660 $1,184,866 -$665,794-36% Missouri $6,029,907 $6,368,172 $4,276,754 -$2,091,418-33% Montana $2,530,390 $2,623,349 $1,803,205 -$820,144-31% Nebraska $2,504,834 $2,586,397 $1,785,141 -$801,256-31% Nevada $838,908 $946,130 $607,620 -$338,510-36% New Hampshire $1,515,114 $1,593,171 $1,085,581 -$507,590-32% New Jersey $5,125,246 $5,266,959 $3,637,316 -$1,629,643-31% New Mexico $1,917,964 $2,059,770 $1,370,326 -$689,444-33% New York $20,259,998 $21,818,047 $14,334,957 -$7,483,090-34% North Carolina $4,176,834 $4,576,429 $2,966,954 -$1,609,475-35% North Dakota $2,507,804 $2,589,151 $1,787,240 -$801,911-31% Ohio $13,801,761 $14,242,973 $9,770,104 -$4,472,869-31% Oklahoma $2,602,794 $2,831,669 $1,854,381 -$977,288-35%

5 NCAF 2/2006 Oregon $2,833,724 $2,921,655 $2,017,609 -$904,046-31% Pennsylvania $14,772,357 $15,101,584 $10,456,146 -$4,645,438-31% Rhode Island $1,161,108 $1,253,702 $835,360 -$418,342-33% South Carolina $1,783,179 $1,982,643 $1,275,056 -$707,587-36% South Dakota $1,925,053 $1,991,514 $1,375,336 -$616,178-31% Tennessee $4,199,886 $4,534,180 $2,983,248 -$1,550,932-34% Texas $5,599,993 $6,607,385 $3,972,880 -$2,634,505-40% Utah $2,086,136 $2,161,298 $1,489,194 -$672,104-31% Vermont $1,283,358 $1,353,926 $921,769 -$432,157-32% Virginia $4,034,302 $4,344,862 $2,866,208 -$1,478,654-34% Washington $4,560,166 $4,688,820 $3,237,903 -$1,450,917-31% West Virginia $3,225,843 $3,320,985 $2,294,769 -$1,026,216-31% Wisconsin $8,606,650 $8,800,191 $6,098,064 -$2,702,127-31% Wyoming $1,179,511 $1,221,639 $848,368 -$373,271-31% States and Tribes $224,737,600 $237,402,000 $159,598,000 -$77,804,000-33% Federal T&TA & Nat Evaluation $3,422,400 $4,554,000 $4,600,000 Total $228,160,000 $241,956,000 $164,198, States that lose more than the Avg. 32% reduction v. FY 06 Percent Loss Florida 46% Texas 40% Arizona 39% Louisiana 38% Georgia 37% Alabama 37% California 37% Mississippi 36% Nevada 36% South Carolina 36% North Carolina 35% Connecticut 35% Oklahoma 35% Maryland 35% New York 34% Tennessee 34% Virginia 34% New Mexico 33% Rhode Island 33% District of Columbia 33% Kansas 33% Missouri 33% Massachusetts 33% Arkansas 33% State 12 States That Lose More than $2M v FY 06 Lost funds New York $ (7,483,090) Michigan $ (4,647,607) Pennsylvania $ (4,645,438) Illinois $ (4,502,329) Ohio $ (4,472,869) Minnesota $ (3,143,305) Wisconsin $ (2,702,127) Texas $ (2,634,505) California $ (2,601,554) Massachusetts $ (2,274,472) Indiana $ (2,096,416) Missouri $ (2,091,418)

6 SUPPORT THE LOW-INCOME WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Please co-sign Letter to the Appropriators Dear Colleague: Please join us in co-signing the attached letter to the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee in support of the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program. Specifically, the letter urges the appropriators to provide no less than the current funding level of $242 million for this important program. The Weatherization program improves the energy efficiency of low-income homes, thereby greatly reducing energy costs for those least able to afford them. Through this program, low-income families have seen their energy bills reduced by 31% and energy consumption by over 20%. At this year's fuel prices, weatherized homes will have winter natural gas bills that are more than $400 lower and heating oil bills that are about $500 lower than they would have been without Weatherization investments. These savings can be used for other important family needs such as food, clothing, housing and other basic necessities of life. The nation and other utility customers also benefit by the reduction in demand for precious oil and gas supplies. About 5.3 million homes have been weatherized by this program alone, and the local delivery agencies have leveraged nearly as much from non-federal funds as from the DOE program each year. However, there are about 20 million households still eligible for weatherization services, and most community action agencies already have waiting lists that will take one to four years to complete. Weatherization is one of the real, proven success stories among the government s programs to change the lives of low-income families and it has never been so valuable as it is in today s energy market. If you would like to co-sign this letter please contact Warren Gunnels in the office of Rep. Bernard Sanders at , Eben Carle in the office of Sherwood Boehlert at or Rachel Kondor in the office of Rep. Raul Grijalva at Sincerely, Bernard Sanders Sherwood Boehlert Raul Grijalva Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

7 The Honorable David L. Hobson The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky Chairman Ranking Member Committee on Appropriations Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Subcommittee on Energy and Water U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC Washington, DC Dear Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky, We are writing to urge your Subcommittee to provide funding for the FY 2007 Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program at no less than the current level, $242 million. We do not support the Budget request to reduce Weatherization funding; millions who cannot afford the energy that their dilapidated older housing units require need help immediately. Weatherization changes energy bills permanently and significantly. The savings, measured in either scarce household dollars or volumes of gas and oil conserved, multiply with each passing year. Their value increases directly as prices go up. The nation s energy priorities should include immediate savings and relief from high bills, as well as sound long term energy research. Weatherization has won its bipartisan support by delivering proven energy results. The Department has documented that, year after year, it reduces home heating bills by an average of 31% and year-round usage by over 20%. In the face of the Department of Energy prediction that energy bills will continue to rise, the program's value will also rise, and the protection afforded to the poor will actually grow over time. At this year's fuel prices, as estimated by the Energy Information Administration, weatherized homes will have winter natural gas bills that are more than $400 below the amount they would have been without Weatherization. In addition, homes that heat with fuel oil will, on average, save over $500 on heating alone through the Weatherization program. About 5.3 million homes have been weatherized by the DOE program, and we estimate another 2 to 3 million have been weatherized by the Community Action Agencies using Department of Energy techniques, and funds from LIHEAP or utility programs. However, there are about 20 million households still eligible for weatherization services, and most local agencies already have waiting lists that will take one to four years to complete. Your Subcommittee is known for its support of commercializing the fruits of government research. The Weatherization program has tested emerging technologies and created markets for them; national laboratories have created software tools and new protocols to support decisions about what investments to make in a home. The training for this program is moving taxpayer-funded building efficiency technology directly to local homebuilding markets. Local Weatherization programs have ramped up staffing and contracting and have intensified training ever since the Congress provided a significant program increase in FY Several major utility-funded programs have been initiated and coordinated with the Weatherization network's DOE-funded work. The capacity and the reliability of the DOE program attract these other funders. Should the funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program drop below the current level, the new capacity, equipment and, more important, the trained workforce will no longer be fully utilized; private investment that depends on the DOE program delivery capability will be lost. We support the plan passed by both Houses in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that more than doubles Weatherization funding and we hope your Subcommittee will, at the very least, maintain its operations until it can be fully funded. We appreciate your consideration of our views. Sincerely,

CONNECTICUT: ECONOMIC FUTURE WITH EDUCATIONAL REFORM

CONNECTICUT: ECONOMIC FUTURE WITH EDUCATIONAL REFORM This file contains detailed projections and information from the article: Eric A. Hanushek, Jens Ruhose, and Ludger Woessmann, It pays to improve school