For an analysis of the low-income consumer provisions in the House bill, see Dorothy Rosenbaum, Sharon Parrott, and Chad Stone, “How Low-Income Consumers Fare in the House Climate Bill,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 7, 2009. The box on page 6 compares the Kerry-Lieberman provisions with those in the House bill.
 See “Policy Basics: Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 22, 2010.
 The amounts to be available for the Energy Refund Program and the tax credit for working families are specified in sections 3203 and 3201, respectively, of the Kerry-Lieberman draft legislation. Elsewhere in the legislation however, less than 15 percent of the allowance value is explicitly allocated for these purposes. The difference would be made up from other sources of revenue in the legislation and from over-allocations to other purposes.
 In a cap-and-trade system, the cost to companies of buying the emissions allowances is a business expense that they pass on to consumers as higher prices, including higher electricity and natural gas bills. The Kerry-Lieberman proposal would give free allowances to LDCs but require them to use those allowances to benefit their customers, presumably by selling the allowances and using the proceeds to give customers relief on their utility bills. Natural gas utilities would be required to use a portion of their free allowances for energy efficiency programs; there is no similar requirement for electric utilities. This creates ambiguity about whether and to what degree LDCs could use the proceeds from selling their allowances for energy efficiency expenditures, rather than to directly lower their customers’ bills.
 EIA would base this calculation on the market value of emissions allowances, other economic costs of capping carbon emissions, and the carbon footprint of low-income households at this income level, which can be derived from government data on consumer expenditures.
 The bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to convert the payments to quarterly delivery if the benefit amount is modest compared to the administrative costs of delivering it on a monthly basis.
 Undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for a refund.
 Since all low-income seniors and people with disabilities who participate in both Medicare and Medicaid are automatically enrolled in the low-income subsidy, they would automatically receive the energy refund.
 Under the recently enacted health care reform law, many additional individuals will qualify for Medicaid, notably low-income parents and childless adults with income below about 133 percent of the poverty line. This improves the reach of the Energy Refund Program and obviates the need for an EITC expansion to reach childless adults, as was the strategy under the House bill.
 Technically, eligibility would start at $1,000 below 150 percent of poverty and would begin to phase out at $2,000 below 250 percent of poverty. The income range for the full tax credit would be about 145 percent to about 240 percent of poverty, and households with incomes between 240 and 250 percent of poverty would receive a partial credit. All taxpayers in the income range would be eligible for the credit, except people who are dependents on another return or nonresident aliens, such as tourists or foreign students. Undocumented immigrants could not qualify for the tax credit.
 The legislation also calls for a study on the feasibility of administering the refunds to all consumers using monthly electronic transfer.