That connective, people-centered resource is what SCEP has built and maintained over decades. Though SCEP has been reorganized by DOE into the Office of Innovation, Affordability and Consumer Choice within the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation (CMEI), the underlying delivery system across the three annually appropriated SCEP programs relies on the same combination of formula grants to states, Tribal governments, and territories; competitive awards to local governments; and technical assistance supporting program design, procurement, compliance, and deployment.

The FY27 proposed funding levels would eliminate SCEP programs that provide support to local governments across these areas. This would reduce the number of weatherized homes, upgraded schools and other community facilities, and make it more challenging for local governments to lower energy bills for families.

Historically, Congress has supported SCEP core programs, directing DOE to maintain their budgets and delivery functions. Within the FY27 Budget Justification document DOE provides no explanation for why SCEP should receive zero appropriations. 

SCEP Supports State and Local Capacity to Deliver Energy Programs

For those outside of government, "administrative support" and "technical assistance" are not always easy to describe. In short, they complement and leverage funding and can complement  state and local energy goals. State energy offices in all 56 states and territories don't just receive federal funds — they manage contractor pipelines, train auditors, develop State Energy Security Plans, and serve as the operational backbone for programs like SEP. When technical assistance to State energy offices is reduced their capacity to manage these programs is limited. As a result program delivery within states slows down and skilled workforces such as contractors and auditors supporting these programs become less engaged and ultimately may move on to other workstreams and industries. 

Similarly, WAP supports DOE’s objectives to lower energy bills while expanding cost-effective energy choices for all American communities. It has weatherized more than 7.2 million homes since the program began, delivering 32,000 low-income residential energy retrofits each year, and saving households $372 per year on average in lower energy expenditures.

Deploying WAP funds effectively requires a robust network of Community Action Agencies across each county jurisdiction, trained and qualified contractors to perform the work, and a required pipeline of weatherization ready homes that have addressed health and safety issues before weatherization begins. Without WAP, homes get “deferred”, insulation, ventilation and other measures may not get deployed, and energy costs will likely continue to rise with household electricity rates. Prior WAP evaluations and Congressional Research Service reports note that health and safety deferrals are already a major constraint for states. A WAP program evaluation program reported that: “Homeowners felt safer, more comfortable, and healthier in their homes, and reported financial savings that would allow them to pay for other necessities.”  

Proposal Would Imperil Effective Implementation of Infrastructure and Energy Saving Programs

Alongside SEP and WAP, SCEP programs provide technical assistance, and funding to collectively support state and local governments in managing and implementing other programs that provide energy benefits and save communities money. Major IIJA programs still have significant appropriations remaining to distribute outside of annual appropriations and without SCEP support communities could see further delays in realizing the benefits of these programs. 

For example, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program received a $550 million appropriation under the IIJA in 2021 and has historically extended federal energy resources to more than 2,000 local jurisdictions. Without SCEP technical assistance and directed support under programs like EECBG, smaller and rural communities – which often have limited staff and less procurement capacity – are likely disadvantaged relative to larger and better resourced towns and cities. The result is a smaller and less balanced system in which rural residents miss out on opportunities to improve their schools, buildings, and transportation programs.

Technical assistance also operates hand-in-hand with programs like SEP. For example, it allows a group of small towns in North Carolina to navigate federal procurement requirements and use energy savings performance contracts to save over $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars on energy costs in public buildings. This saves scarce taxpayer resources and helps local governments invest in their facilities when they might not have been able to on their own. Without the technical assistance and support, future savings like this would be lost.

SCEP has been critical in distributing and supporting initial state implementation of the $8.8 billion in Home Energy Rebate programs established through IRA. Early movers under this program like Georgia, and Arizona have already delivered savings for households - the latter of which has provided 523 rebates and saved households over 275,000 kilowatt-hours. Without SCEP support, delivering on  these savings in other states creates delays and ultimately impacts eligible applicants who can benefit from these cost-savings. During a budget hearing on April 15, 2026, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright indicated the remaining rebate funds would likely be released “in the near future.”  

Practical Questions the Proposal Leaves Open

Several implementation questions follow directly from the proposed reductions in SCEP that the budget documents don't answer:

• What is the substitute for rural communities who would otherwise benefit from support for affordable energy?

• Who at DOE will provide oversight on the administration and distribution of remaining funds through the Home Energy Rebates programs to ensure cost-saving benefits are delivered to qualifying consumers?  

• How will states meet their local energy security via State Energy Security Plans with reduced support?

• As Tribal funding rolls out, will federally-recognized Tribes receive their share of EECBG funding? Who will provide oversight? 

• How will local government compliance with federal requirements for federal funding (such as on sourcing domestic materials, paying prevailing wages, and environmental assessments) which has historically been supported through SCEP technical assistance be maintained without SCEP support?

• What financial burdens and health impacts will be faced by consumers who would otherwise qualify for WAP if the program is eliminated?"

SCEP programs are about people, homes, local workforces, and communities with federal funding that is delivered through a system of state and community partnerships that have been built up over decades. If the system shrinks, the ability to deliver reliable and accessible energy and cost savings to consumers will take time to recover and be unable to respond to rising energy costs.