I was looking for some additional background on the proposed LIHEAP cuts I'm hearing about in the new Federal budget. Supposedly the proposed reduction is quite large, on the order of several billion dollars. I'm assuming this is across the country, not state specific. Is it just fuel assistance that's threatened or are there other areas within weatherization & energy that are potentially targeted which are not being mentioned?
Thank you for any information you may have.
I am looking for info on this same topic, the article in our local paper kind of skimmed the topic and was not very specific. I do think that the WAP funds are in place until march of next year, after that, that is the question. i would love some feedback on the same topic.
Thank You Joe
Yes, very interesting , It was suggested last week at a conference in DC expect WAP to fall off a cliff March 2012...sadly . Unsure the specifics on LIHEAP cuts but approx 50% cut of 2.5 bil from current 5.1 bil
Earlier the DOE EE/RE Progress alert came out containing Energy Budget proposal- Not Nearly as ridiculous as what those on the RIGHT seek...steeper cuts to the EPA, Energy Star and related programs. I skimmed the alert and one thing that stuck out is over $100 Billion for nuclear w $38 Bil Loan guarantees for 9 reactors through 2014? yikes
Sounds like many states are speaking up in oposition to LIHEAP cuts...
I agree with Joe that WAP funds are in place until 3/12 unless republicans can retrieve unspent Recovery act $
Many budget highlights - energy.gov
THanks Matt for starting this discussion.
The U.S. imported 61 percent of its oil in 2010, or 4.25 billion barrels. We exported approximately $337 billion to foreign countries to pay for that oil. That’s an average American’s annual salary of $50k gone every 5 seconds! That’s the whole 2 years worth of ARRA funding ($5B) spent in 5-1/2 days! We don’t import oil, we export money.
It would help to look at the LIHEAP program differently. If we view it as just one facet of a greater program to reduce our dependency on foreign energy, reduce our trade deficit, increase national security and strengthen our economy, then it looks pretty good. Those opposed to LIHEAP may see it as a social program, but those that support it also see LIHEAP as part of a larger energy security program.
Two-thirds of the Senators are already speaking out against LIHEAP cuts. I doubt it will get much traction during bitter cold spells. I expect to see much more news about WAP funding cuts come warm weather. To say the least, it's going to get interesting...
Thanks for the information, Mike. Trying to find links, but not much coverage in the media, at least that I can see.
"Two-thirds of the Senators are already speaking out against LIHEAP cuts. I doubt it will get much traction during bitter cold spells. I expect to see much more news about WAP funding cuts come warm weather. To say the least, it's going to get interesting..."
It's frustrating re: WAP funding cuts. I too see LIHEAP as something that helps those with a real need, but also agree that it can help promote national security, making the program more attractive. Having said that, why WAP is not a priority boggles my mind. All those LIHEAP funds going to buy fuel oil that's just going to leak right out of the house which isn't weatherized properly to begin with...feels like we're putting the cart before the horse.
There's over 120 million homes in America, and under ARRA the national Weatherization Assistance Program is improving 1,000 homes a day. We should get to them all in 329 years at this rate.
The average American uses 4-5% of their income to pay for energy costs, but low-income people pay more like 14% or more of their income towards energy bills. LIHEAP and WAP often work in concert to help low-income clients cover their energy costs and reduce their energy bills.
Even though many agencies are scrambling to perform weatherization triage on as many homes as possible, folks need to stay warm until their homes get weatherized.
I have not yet been able to find the details of the proposed budget yet to see how it is to be executed, but it does appear that it is a 50% cut in spending. (I honestly have not had time to dig into it.) I assume that the details will be posted on the White House Office of Management and Budget within the week, however... if they are not already... especially with so many lawmakers already speaking up asking "Are you sure that is a good idea?"
Have you tried looking here?