C.M.R. 99, 346, ch. 24 - HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RULE

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: 30-A M.R.S. §§4722(1)(W), 4741(1) and (15), and 4991 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §§ 8621, et seq.

BASIS STATEMENT: This replacement rule repeals and replaces in its entirety the current Home Energy Assistance Program Rule. The rule establishes standards for administering fuel assistance, emergency fuel assistance, TANF Fuel Supplemental Benefits, weatherization, heat pumps, and heating system repair and replacement funds to income eligible households in the State of Maine. This replacement rule: removes unnecessary definitions and language from the Rule and places it within the HEAP Handbook and other relevant guidance; clarifies existing definitions; modifies the requirements for Categorical Income Eligibility; reorganizes the sections for a more logical flow; adds additional alternatives to the allowable documentation Applicants must provide to verify citizenship/legal status, identity and social security numbers; establishes a new points system for determining Benefits that will assist with the move to mostly online Applications; and clarifies the limited circumstances in which MaineHousing will allow a waiver of the Rule.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Process:

Notice of Agency Rule-making Proposal (MAPA-3) was submitted to the Secretary of State for publication in the May 1, 2024 edition of the appropriate newspapers. Additionally, MaineHousing sent the proposed rule to Interested Parties on May 7, 2024 and published the proposed rule on its website on May 1, 2024. MaineHousing held a public hearing on May 21, 2024. The comment period was held open until May 31, 2024 at 5:00 PM.

Summary of Comments and Responses to Comments:

Comment: Christina Link, Director of Housing and Energy Services for The Opportunity Alliance provided testimony at the public hearing in support of the proposed changes to the Rule. Christina thanked MaineHousing for working with The Opportunity Alliance this year to allow: applicants to choose their requested fuel type; applicants with a negative heat burden to have access to ECIP funds; and benefits to be paid out before the start of the ECIP season.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing appreciates the support.

Comment: Christina Link, also endorsed the change to categorical income eligibility that would require household members not listed on a SNAP Notice of Decision from DHHS to provide income documentation for eligibility verification.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing appreciates the support.

Comment: Christina Link further endorsed the change to the calculation of benefits, moving away from consumption and design heat load to a points system that she feels will streamline the application process, lessen subjectivity and make it easier for applicants to better anticipate their benefits from year to year.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing appreciates the support.

Comment: Chris Hastedt, Senior Policy Advisor for Maine Equal Justice provided testimony at the public hearing thanking MaineHousing for the work it had done to improve the Rule and solicit advice from interested parties. Chris commented that Maine Equal Justice had concerns about the processing of applications in a timely manner and asked MaineHousing to consider changing to Rule to require a written determination of eligibility within ten (10) days regardless of whether funds are available or not.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing appreciates the suggestion, however, providing a determination of eligibility for a Program that does not have any funds creates an expectation of receipt of benefits and if the Program were not funded all of the individuals that were told they were eligible would then be told their applications were denied. This could significantly increase the number of denials and/or fair hearings and create an administrative burden. Additionally, the benefit notification process is currently tied to the payment process. So by providing a determination of eligibility, it would trigger the benefit notification process even in situations where funding is not available.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also commented on Household Eligibility as it relates to Citizenship Status and asked MaineHousing to consider providing benefits in situations where not all of the household members are qualified and the ability to prorate a benefit is not possible. As an example Chris referenced the Central Heating Improvement Program and a household's need for a furnace repair, which cannot be provided to just one individual. Chris asserted there is Federal guidance that suggests in those circumstances a benefit could be provided to the household even if the household includes individuals that are not eligible for HEAP.

MaineHousing's Response: Section 3, Eligibility, states that if the Applicant or any Household Member does not meet the citizenship requirement, they must be excluded from the total number of Household Members when calculating a Fuel Assistance Benefit. This prorates the Fuel Assistance Benefit based on the number of eligible Household Members. For CHIP the eligibility is based on whether or not the Household was eligible for HEAP as a whole, had an eligible Application that was certified within the preceding 12 months and did not have a more recent Application that had been certified denied. This is not based on proration and a Household that includes Household Members that are not eligible for HEAP can still receive benefits under CHIP. The same is true for HEAP Weatherization and the Heat Pump Program. ECIP also allows a Household as a whole to receive a benefit if a Household Member's health and safety is threatened. There is no restriction on receiving benefits if some of the Household Members are not HEAP eligible.

Comment: Chris Hastedt provided testimony and written comments as follows:

1) Asked MaineHousing to consider revising the Rule to allow benefits to be paid to individuals living in campers or RVs. Chris emphasized the statutory goal of LIHEAP is to provide benefits to those of the lowest income with the highest heat burden. Chris indicated Vermont and New Hampshire had begun providing benefits to these individuals, but that not much data was available at this time. Chris addressed a number of concerns such as safety, overburdening of the Program and impact on other programs by saying that MaineHousing could address these through Rulemaking and advocacy by creating regulatory standards for safety, asking the governor for more money and excluding these individuals from other programs. Chris also noted that LIAP currently allows campers if residential electric is being provided on a year round basis.

2) Attached comments from Suzy Young, an individual residing in an RV. The comments state Suzy does not understand why MaineHousing has chosen to make families living in RVs ineligible for LIHEAP. Suzy's RV is permanently attached to the earth, electricity, a septic tank and a well pump and pressure tank and is a permanent year-round home. The local Code Enforcement Officer inspected the RV and issued a Certificate of Occupancy. While the RV may still have wheels it is not moving.

3) Attached a Memorandum dated March 8, 2024, addressed to MaineHousing regarding the authority to implement LIHEAP changes to include Mainers living in campers. The Memorandum states MaineHousing has the authority under federal and state law to include campers in the definition of "dwelling unit." In support of this comment, the Memorandum states neither dwelling nor dwelling unit is defined in the LIHEAP statute or State law and therefore MaineHousing has the authority to define the term. The Memorandum urges MaineHousing to align its definition of dwelling unit with neighboring states such as New Hampshire and Vermont, who have specifically included certain campers in their respective LIHEAP Programs. The Memorandum also provides that the Low Income Assistance Program which helps low-income Mainers with their electricity allows campers to receive benefits.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing acknowledges that some States have chosen to include campers as eligible dwellings for the purpose of LIHEAP and acknowledges that the LIHEAP statute does not provide clear guidance on the definition of a dwelling unit, which leaves the definition open for interpretation by individual States. The laws in New Hampshire and Vermont define the term "dwelling unit" differently from Maine law. In setting its definition of dwelling unit for the purposes of the Rule, MaineHousing looked to federal law, Maine law and other program guidance to establish a definition that was consistent with already existing definitions and MaineHousing's other programs. The definition of dwelling unit has consistently excluded campers, boats, yurts and other structures designed and constructed to provide temporary living quarters for over twenty-four years. Similarly, MaineHousing has operated a number of other programs through the same lens, not allowing campers to be deemed eligible dwelling units. A change to LIHEAP would be inconsistent with other MaineHousing programs. It would also allow campers and other temporary living quarters to qualify for HEAP Weatherization, the Central Heating Improvement Program and the Heat Pump Program.

MaineHousing does not believe it is feasible to provide these services to campers and other temporary living quarters based on the nature and construction, which is designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or other use. While MaineHousing appreciates the suggestion that campers and temporary living quarters could be excluded from other programs, doing so would require additional rulemaking and coordination with other non-MaineHousing programs that use LIHEAP as eligibility for their own programs. Additionally, the suggestion that MaineHousing could create regulatory standards to determine some campers eligible as dwelling units, but exclude all other types of campers and temporary living quarters, is not feasible and would be burdensome to verify and enforce to ensure cars, boats, yurts and other temporary living quarters could not meet those standards. Additionally, with the latitude provided to municipalities throughout the State to determine when a certificate of occupancy may be issued, it would be near impossible to create a standard that is fair across the board as some municipalities may refuse to recognize a camper as a dwelling unit.

LIAP is run by the Maine Public Utilities Commission. It is not a MaineHousing program. Eligibility for LIAP is based on eligibility for LIHEAP and/or participation in a DHHS means tested programs with a household income at or less than 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. A camper would not be eligible for LIHEAP, which means eligibility would have to be verified by participation in a DHHS means tested programs, which looks at income versus the status of a dwelling unit. The LIAP application for customers who participate in a DHHS program asks nothing about the type of dwelling unit and instead asks for the address, name of the utility provider and the utility account number. So as long as the household has a utility account and is paying for and receiving electricity, it qualifies. There is no dwelling unit eligibility, which is substantially different from LIHEAP.

In the last two years the number of applications MaineHousing has received for LIHEAP has increased by over 160% and the amount of funding MaineHousing has received for LIHEAP has decreased significantly with the termination of supplemental benefits and the return to the regular amount of funding. LIHEAP funding does not increase based on the number of applicants and MaineHousing expects the number of applications to continue to increase. MaineHousing already cannot serve all of the applicants who have applied for LIHEAP and for those MaineHousing can serve, the average benefit has been cut by more than 50%. Opening the door to allow temporary living quarters originally designed and constructed for recreational, camping, travel or other use to be determined eligible dwelling units, would only further reduce benefits to individuals residing in permanent living quarters. While MaineHousing may advocate for additional funding when the opportunity presents itself, there is no guaranty that additional funding will be provided and even if it were provided, there is no guaranty it would be provided on a consistent ongoing basis.

Comment: Chris Hastedt commented on Income Eligibility stating that the current Rule looks at the most recent or 1 month income and that this is no longer in the Rule. Chris asked MaineHousing to include a provision in the Rule regarding what income is going to be considered and asked MaineHousing to consider excluding terminated sources of income.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing made the decision to have the Rule defer to the HEAP Handbook for the income eligibility verification period as it wanted the flexibility to be able to adjust the verification period if it found that the selected verification period was causing a burden to Applicants. The requirements for what is included in Household Income still remains in the Rule as does the requirements for categorical eligibility, it is just the verification period that has been moved to the HEAP Handbook. MaineHousing will not include terminated sources of income in the household income calculation and will outline this in the HEAP Handbook.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also commented on the Benefit Determination and expressed concern about prioritizing simply on the basis of age, disability or age of a child. Chris indicated that there are a number of people with low incomes and high energy burdens who are not in one of those categories and therefore do not receive additional points for eligibility for benefits. Chris recommended MaineHousing consider taking into account income and energy burden within the age, disability and age of a child categories to have the points be more directly weighted.

MaineHousing's Response: The LIHEAP Guidance explicitly states LIHEAP benefits target households with low incomes, particularly those that have a high home energy burden and/or have members who are elderly, disabled, and/or a young child. MaineHousing made the decision to follow this guidance and provide priority for those populations. Additionally, the data supports providing priority to those populations. Of the 65,583 households that have applied in PY2024, approximately 86% of the households have a household member who is either elderly, disabled, and/or a young child.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also commented on ECIP and urged MaineHousing to consider establishing separate, clear and distinct standards for benefits in ECIP. Chris indicated the current practice is to give priority in taking ECIP applications, but this is not codified in the Rule. Chris suggested revising the Rule to require an initial screening to see if an applicant meets the definition of Energy Crisis outlined in the Rule and if so, allow the applicant the right to apply within 48 hours, receive a decision within 24 hours and then be provided assistance. Chris indicated the proposed Rule does not account for a situation where an application is not processed in a timely manner.

MaineHousing's Response: The current practice is to prioritize ECIP applicants. The Subgrantees are directed to schedule HEAP appointments in a way that allows room for Applicants who are in an emergency. Generally, when a household calls a Subgrantee with an emergency, the Subgrantee will schedule them for an appointment the same day or as soon as possible. The Application is taken and processed and a delivery is set up to take place within 18 or 48 hours depending upon the type of emergency. All of the documentation required for the ECIP Application is the same as the HEAP Application. MaineHousing does not have separate applications, however, designating an Application as an ECIP Application forces the Vendors to comply with their contracts and take action immediately. MaineHousing does not believe the standards for ECIP should be different than the standards for HEAP other than the fact that ECIP should be prioritized. MaineHousing believes ECIP Applications are being processed as quickly as feasible under the current standards.

Comment: Chris Hastedt further commented MaineHousing should consider a presumptive eligibility methodology like the one used in SNAP where they determine an application without fully verifying all the elements of that application so that they are able to make a determination of eligibility within 24 hours.

MaineHousing's Response: All of the elements of an Application must be fully verified prior to determining a Household eligible for benefits to ensure MaineHousing is complying with Federal law. The HEAP and ECIP applications require the same information and MaineHousing believes that all of the information is necessary in order to ensure compliance. Creating a pared down version of the Application that would then require follow-up after the issuance of benefits, would create a burden on both the Applicants and the Subgrantees and make it more difficult to complete Applications.

Comment: Chris Hastedt commented with respect to Fair Hearings that MaineHousing should consider revising the Rule to allow individuals to request a fair hearing in instances where the amount of the benefit itself is disputed as opposed to the criteria used to determine the benefit.

MaineHousing's Response: The LIHEAP Statute only requires fair administrative hearings for individuals who were denied assistance or applied and their application was not acted upon with reasonable promptness. MaineHousing's Rule adds additional opportunities for Fair Hearing, one of which is if the Applicant disputes the criteria used to calculate the amount of their Benefit. This is not required under Federal law, but MaineHousing feels it is important as it allows an Applicant that believes their benefit was incorrectly calculated to ask for review to see if an error was made. Changing the language to allow a fair hearing for any dispute of the amount with no justification, would allow fair hearings for any situation where an individual is not happy with the amount of the benefit. With the increase in applications and the decrease in benefits, this would likely result in a larger number of fair hearings which would cause administrative concerns.

Comment: Chris Hastedt provided testimony and written comments suggesting that an individual should be able to request a fair hearing on the basis of who was included and excluded as household members.

MaineHousing's Response: The Rule allows an individual to request a Fair Hearing if they dispute the criteria used to calculate the amount of their Benefit.

Comment: Chris Hastedt asked MaineHousing to define "reasonable promptness" which is one of the allowable criteria for requesting an Informal Review and Fair Hearing. Chris suggested MaineHousing adopt a 30 day standard to meet the definition of "reasonable promptness" and suggested using a similar standard for ECIP.

MaineHousing's Response: Reasonable promptness is defined by the deadline Subgrantees have to certify or deny an Application. The Rule states that within thirty (30) business days of the Date of Application Subgrantees must certify or deny an Application unless a waiver up to forty-five (45) business days is granted by MaineHousing. MaineHousing has added clarifying language to Section 13(A) which reads "(meaning it was not certified or denied within the required timeframe outlined in this Rule or as approved by waiver)".

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments encouraging MaineHousing to allow applicants to make an oral request by telephone or in-person for an Informal Review.

MaineHousing's Response: If an individual making a request for an Informal Review needs a reasonable accommodation to submit that request by telephone or in-person that individual may make a request for that accommodation.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also submitted written comments stating 60 days for a written decision with an additional 10 days for implementation in the Fair Hearing process was too long and that there should be an expedited hearing process for ECIP as well as a shorter time period for implementation of any decision.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing's Fair Hearings are conducted by trained and impartial hearing officers. There are a limited number of individuals in the State of Maine that do this type of work and currently MaineHousing only has one hearing officer despite numerous attempts to retain additional hearing officers. The hearing officer holds a hearing and considers all of the evidence presented and issues a recommended decision to MaineHousing and the individual that is then available for both parties to comment on. The hearing officer then has a chance to modify the recommended decision based on comments received and issue a final recommended decision. That final recommended decision must then be reviewed by MaineHousing's Director and a final agency decision must be issued within the sixty day timeframe. The sixty days is a quick turnaround given all of the steps that need to occur. Shortening the timeframe would be to the detriment of all parties involved. That being said, MaineHousing does its best to issue decisions as quickly as possible. As to the implementation timeframe, MaineHousing does not believe ten days is too long.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also commented on Errors and Program Abuse asking MaineHousing to consider modifying the Rule to not require collection of overpayments in situations where an agency caused the error or the error was unintentional on the part of the household. Chris suggested modeling a revision after the Unemployment Insurance Program that offers guidance on what an unintentional overpayment is. Chris provided in the alternative that MaineHousing could automatically excuse these types of overpayments for anyone under 100% FPL or a member of a "priority population."

MaineHousing's Response: Section 14, Errors and Program Abuse, allows individuals the chance to correct unintentional errors by working with MaineHousing and the Subgrantees to provide additional documentation and information showing the error was unintentional. If the error was not caused by the individual and was instead caused by the Subgrantee, MaineHousing would not hold the individual responsible for the error. MaineHousing has added clarifying language to Section 14(B) that states "If MaineHousing determines the Errors were at no fault of the Applicant, MaineHousing will not require an Overpayment from the Applicant."

Comment: Chris Hastedt commented on the waiver provision that allows MaineHousing to consider providing a waiver to the thirty (30) business day certification or denial period of an Application. Chris expressed concern that if this was to become a blanket waiver it would undermine the importance of timeliness in processing applications. Chris recommended MaineHousing grant these waivers judiciously and only after the Subgrantee has provided a plan with the reasons for the delay and the corrective action that will be taken in the future to avoid delay.

MaineHousing's Response: Section 15 clearly states MaineHousing will only grant waivers of the Rule and/or HEAP Handbook in very limited circumstances. In order to request a waiver Subgrantees are required to submit a Waiver Request Form that asks for the reason for the request, actions/research the Subgrantee has compiled to justify the exception and identification and attachment of supporting documentation. MaineHousing reviews all of this information in determining whether or not a waiver is appropriate. This process does not lend itself to blanket waivers and is not intended to allow a Subgrantee to circumvent the Rule.

Comment: Chris Hastedt commented that no waivers as to timeliness for ECIP Applications should be allowed.

MaineHousing's Response: In the majority of cases if an individual submits an ECIP Application and provides all the required documentation, which most do, the individual is provided with a same day appointment and benefits are issued within the required 18 to 48 hour timeframes. MaineHousing does not anticipate any requests for waivers for ECIP applications, but would do its due diligence if one was received to review all the surrounding facts and circumstances.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also commented that the waiver provision allowing MaineHousing to extend the deadline to receive a signed application within twenty (20) business days of a telephone interview is not supported by an underlying provision in the Rule.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing agrees this is not clear in the Rule. A clarification has been added to Section 2(C)(4) and a new section 2(C)(5) has been added to require all Applications to be returned, signed by the Applicant, within twenty (20) business days of the interview with the Subgrantee. This change has also been reflected in Section 15(D).

Comment: Chris Hastedt also provided written comments that the Rule does not support the notion that an application will be denied for missing information within a certain time.

MaineHousing's Response: Section 2(C) provides that a Subgrantee must certify or deny an Application within thirty (30) business days from the Date of Application, so it is implied that if an Applicant does not provide the required documentation within thirty (30) business days from the Date of Application, the Application will be denied.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also provided written comments encouraging MaineHousing to accept electronic signatures and telephonic signatures to expedite telephone applications.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing does acceptable electronic signatures for all Applicants that apply online. Additionally, MaineHousing provides guidance on acceptable signatures in the HEAP Handbook. At this time MaineHousing does not have the capability to accept telephonic signatures.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also provided written comments asking MaineHousing to increase the deadline to receive a signed application from twenty (20) business days to thirty (30) business days.

MaineHousing's Response: Section 15(D) allows the Subgrantee to request a waiver on behalf of an applicant for up to thirty (30) business days if a waiver is justified.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also provided written comments asking MaineHousing to increase the deadline for denials for missing information to twenty-five (25) business days from the date of written notification of the denial rather than allowing a waiver for it.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing believes a waiver for this provision is appropriate rather than a change to the Rule. The Rule allows fifteen (15) business days, which is more than fifteen (15) calendar days and if an Applicant misses the fifteen (15) business day window they can ask the Subgrantee to submit a waiver for good cause.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also recommended that MaineHousing should revise the Rule to allow an applicant to show good cause for an extension of the twenty (20) business day deadline for returning a signed application when an application is completed over the phone.

MaineHousing's Response: Section 15(D) allows the Subgrantee to request a waiver on behalf of an applicant for up to thirty (30) business days if a waiver is justified.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments suggesting that instead of switching to "indirect determinable energy cost" MaineHousing add the word "undesignated" in describing payments for energy in the form of rent.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing believes the term has been described appropriately.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments suggesting MaineHousing add to the definition of "Person with a Disability" a person receiving SSI or Social Security Disability.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing has chosen to define "Person with a Disability" in accordance with the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S. §4553-A. Neither HUD nor the Maine Human Rights Act defines disability to include a person receiving SSI or Social Security Disability. A physical or mental disability is not based on receipt of public assistance.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments asking MaineHousing to add "boarders" back to the definition section indicating that other programs, such as SNAP, do make a distinction between roomers and boarders and it would provide clarity for HEAP applicants that both qualify for benefits.

MaineHousing's Response: A clarification has been added to Section 1 (RR) stating "A Roomer also includes a boarder (meaning a Roomer who is provided meals)".

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments suggesting "date of application" be clarified to explicitly name that it also applies to the date on which an online application is filed.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing chose to define "date of application" with one simple definition which includes all methods of delivery.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments suggesting in the written notice of eligibility and denial sections, the Rule require that a list of household members found eligible and ineligible also be included in both notices.

MaineHousing's Response: If Applicants have questions regarding eligible and ineligible Household Members they may request information from the Subgrantee. In the future, MaineHousing will review options available with the HEAP software to determine how this information might be able to be provided.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments encouraging MaineHousing to consider creating a state-funded HEAP program for immigrants not eligible for federal HEAP.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing encourages Maine Equal Justice Partners to approach the Legislature for funding for a program that could provide these services.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments thanking MaineHousing for the proposed changes that make it easier for people to show proof of their citizenship/legal status. Chris commented that if MaineHousing considers using the SAVE System/Social Security Administrative System in the future to determine eligibility, that MaineHousing only use it in conjunction with other methods as it is often unreliable.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing appreciates the support and will certainly consider the reliability of any system it may adopt in the future for eligibility determination.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments stating SNAP electronic benefit transfer cards are no longer issued by Maine DHHS and MaineHousing should be aware of this change, as while people may still have these cards, going forward this form of identification may no longer exist.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing will certainly keep this in mind and may consider removing it as an acceptable form of identification in the future if it becomes obsolete.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments thanking MaineHousing for the changes to Categorical Income Eligibility but asking MaineHousing to consider other forms of verification in addition to the Notice of Decision from DHHS, such as a screenshot from DHHS' online benefits system.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing has added clarifying language to Section 3(C)(2) indicating that a document similar to the DHHS Notice of Decision containing the same information, as determined acceptable by the Subgrantee, may be accepted to establish Categorical Income Eligibility.

Comment: Chris Hastedt submitted written comments concurring with MeCAP's suggestion that MaineHousing allow administering agencies to start accepting ECIP applications earlier in the Program Year.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing does not receive its allocation of LIHEAP funding until mid-November, so in order to start the ECIP prior to November 1, MaineHousing would need to obtain funding from another source to run the program until funds from the Federal government were received. Due to the nature of ECIP and the requirement that deliveries happen within 18 to 48 hours, most Vendors are making deliveries in good faith, with the contractual promise that MaineHousing will provide the funding in a reasonable amount of time. If ECIP started prior to the receipt of Federal funding, there is no guaranty MaineHousing could meet its contractual obligation to Vendors to pay within a reasonable amount of time. For those reasons, ECIP must begin no earlier than November 1.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also submitted written comments regarding the HEAP Handbook expressing concern that the Handbook, which is not easily located, affects people's rights to benefits, and implements, interprets or makes specific the law administered by the agency or describes the procedures or practices of the agency. Chris recommended that any material in the Handbook that affects these things be incorporated into the Rule.

MaineHousing's Response: The Rule clearly outlines the required eligibility requirements for HEAP. The HEAP Handbook is designed to assist in the procedures for operating the program, and is to be used in conjunction with the Rule, State Plan and Subgrantee Agreement. If an Applicant would like a copy of the HEAP Handbook, they may request it from the Subgrantee or MaineHousing.

Comment: Chris Hastedt also submitted written comments encouraging MaineHousing to publish public-facing data on wait times as measured against established improvement goals.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing appreciates this feedback, but would not incorporate this type of request into the Rule. This is something that could be considered outside of Rulemaking.

Comment: Megan Hannan, Executive Director of Maine Community Action Partnership provided testimony at the public hearing agreeing with what Christina Link provided for comments and quite a few things that Chris Hastedt recommended. One additional item Megan commented on was ECIP timing. She suggested that administrators who are doing ECIP and HEAP should put into their Plans that they can do ECIP earlier. Megan indicated this would be good for areas of the State that get colder faster.

MaineHousing's Response: MaineHousing does not receive its allocation of LIHEAP funding until mid-November, so in order to start the ECIP prior to November 1, MaineHousing would need to obtain funding from another source to run the program until funds from the Federal government were received. Due to the nature of ECIP and the requirement that deliveries happen within 18 to 48 hours, most Vendors are making deliveries in good faith, with the contractual promise that MaineHousing will provide the funding in a reasonable amount of time. If ECIP started prior to the receipt of Federal funding, there is no guaranty MaineHousing could meet its contractual obligation to Vendors to pay within a reasonable amount of time. For those reasons, ECIP must begin no earlier than November 1.

Comment: The Office of the Public Advocate, William S. Harwood Public Advocate, Elizabeth Deprey Consumer Advocate, and Kristina Winther Senior Counsel submitted written comments stating while campers/RVs may have originally been constructed as temporary living quarters, if a camper or RV has been made a permanent residence with heating and electrical service, the residents of these dwellings should qualify for HEAP. The Office of the Public Advocate commented this would be consistent with other states such as Vermont and New Hampshire and the Low-Income Assistance Program ("LIAP") which states to be eligible for the program a customer must be a residential customer, who is receiving electrical service on a continuing year-round basis and qualifies for LIHEAP or participates in a DHHS means- tested program and is at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Line. The Office of the Public Advocate commented that individuals living in campers/RVs are likely among those who need HEAP the most and qualifying for HEAP opens the doors to many other support programs such as LIAP, the Arrearage Management Program, ECIP and CHIP.

MaineHousing's Response: The laws in New Hampshire and Vermont define the term "dwelling unit" differently from Maine law. In setting its definition of dwelling unit for the purposes of the Rule, MaineHousing looked to federal law, Maine law and other program guidance to establish a definition that was consistent with already existing definitions and MaineHousing's other programs. The definition of dwelling unit has consistently excluded campers, boats, yurts and other structures designed and constructed to provide temporary living quarters for over twenty-four years. Similarly, MaineHousing has operated a number of other programs through the same lens, not allowing campers to be deemed eligible dwelling units. A change to LIHEAP would be inconsistent with other MaineHousing programs. It would also allow campers and other temporary living quarters to qualify for HEAP Weatherization, the Central Heating Improvement Program and the Heat Pump Program. MaineHousing does not believe it is feasible to provide these services to campers and other temporary living quarters based on the nature and construction, which is designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or other use.

Additionally, creating regulatory standards to determine some campers eligible as dwelling units, but exclude all other types of campers and temporary living quarters, is not feasible and would be burdensome to verify and enforce to ensure cars, boats, yurts and other temporary living quarters could not meet those standards. The latitude provided to municipalities throughout the State to determine when a certificate of occupancy may be issued, would make it near impossible to create a standard that is fair across the board as some municipalities may refuse to recognize a camper as a dwelling unit.

LIAP is run by the Maine Public Utilities Commission. It is not a MaineHousing program. Eligibility for LIAP is based on eligibility for LIHEAP and/or participation in a DHHS means tested programs with a household income at or less than 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. A camper would not be eligible for LIHEAP, which means eligibility would have to be verified by participation in a DHHS means tested programs, which looks at income versus the status of a dwelling unit. The LIAP application for customers who participate in a DHHS program asks nothing about the type of dwelling unit and instead asks for the address, name of the utility provider and the utility account number. So as long as the household has a utility account and is paying for and receiving electricity, it qualifies. There is no dwelling unit eligibility, which is substantially different from LIHEAP.

FISCAL IMPACT NOTE: The replacement HEAP Rule will not impose any cost on municipalities or counties for implementation or compliance.