Commissioner Heather, of the Connecticut Department of Social Services, told the Appropriations Committee an informational hearing that HR 1’s SNAP provisions took effect on passage July 4 and that some changes are already being implemented.

The changes ‘‘were actually made effective upon passage of the bill on July 4,’’ Commissioner Heather said. She described four major provisions she said were in the bill: the elimination of SNAP-Ed funding, restrictions to the “heat-and-eat” mechanism that previously increased SNAP benefits for households receiving LIHEAP, new limits on which noncitizens qualify for SNAP, and substantially expanded work and community-engagement requirements for adults.

Those shifts, agency officials told lawmakers, carry immediate operational and outreach tasks and could cause benefit reductions or closures for sizable groups. ‘‘Only towns or areas with an unemployment rate of greater than 10% can be exempted from the work requirements. And there are no towns in the state of Connecticut where there is a 10% or higher unemployment rate,’’ Deputy Commissioner Peter Hadler said, explaining why prior geographic ‘‘town exemptions’’ no longer apply.

Why it matters: The department outlined a first cohort of roughly 1,500 people whose benefits may end in early December because they have already exhausted the three-month limit for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) or related categories, and broader counts that underpin planning: about 36,000 people the department estimates are at risk under the expanded work-age rules and roughly 50,000 households that previously benefited from the heat-and-eat mechanism. Dan Giacome, the agency’s SNAP director, said the department’s current internal payment-error rate is about 8.7 percent — above the 6 percent threshold at which states pay no contribution under the statute — and that the state pays about $8.885 billion in SNAP benefits annually (about $75 million per month).

What the department will do: Officials described a short, evolving timeline for outreach and operational steps. They plan mailed notices, text alerts, a one-page partner document for community action agencies, provider-facing materials and online decision-tree tools. ‘‘We will be sending what we are defining as closure notices to those who have already exhausted their 3 month eligibility’’ on November 30, the commissioner said; staff said additional targeted notices will begin in early November and ramp through the month.

Officials emphasized partnerships with community action agencies, FoodShare and the governor’s Office of Policy and Management. The department has requested budgets from community partners to expand local assistance, and OPM has provided additional state funds to hire call-center and eligibility staff. The agency also said it has filed an advanced planning document with federal partners to seek funds for system changes and has received a technology grant and vendor interest to help match wage data more frequently.

Key technical changes described by staff:
- Heat-and-eat (LIHEAP unlocking): Under prior practice the LIHEAP payment could be used to ‘‘unlock’’ a standardized utility allowance that increased SNAP benefit calculations for many households. Staff said that mechanism is largely eliminated for most groups except households with an elderly or disabled member; the department estimates the loss averages about $100 per affected household per month and cited roughly 50,000 households impacted by the change.
- Noncitizen eligibility: Under HR 1, eligibility narrows to lawful permanent residents (green card holders), Cuban and Haitian immigrants and COFA citizens (Compact of Free Association citizens from Micronesia and the Marshall Islands). The department said categories that previously qualified — including refugees, asylees, victims of trafficking and Afghan/Iraqi special immigrants — are no longer eligible under the new federal rule.
- Work and community engagement: Staff said the age range subject to the work/community-engagement requirement has effectively expanded (their presentation cited adults up to 64) and that certain exemptions have tightened: the parental exemption now applies to caregivers of children under 14 rather than under 18, and some waivers that previously exempted entire towns (based on local unemployment) are no longer available. Deputy Commissioner Hadler said the federal waiver standard now requires a town-level unemployment rate above 10 percent, which Connecticut has none of, removing prior geographic exemptions that covered 68 towns.

Error rate and fiscal risk: The department said it currently estimates an 8.7 percent SNAP payment-error rate and described federal penalties under HR 1 tied to error-rate bands. At the hearing officials said Connecticut’s projected annual SNAP payments are about $8.885 billion; under HR 1, higher state error rates can trigger required state contributions to benefits. Agency staff described multiple efforts to reduce the error rate, including expanded supervisory reviews, targeting quality control to high-risk cases, additional training, technological vendor partnerships, use of new data sources and collaboration with Yale to identify error-prone cases.

Questions from lawmakers focused on several specific concerns: the capacity of community action agencies to absorb increased casework and volunteer placement, whether Conduent (the EBT vendor) and retailers could operate in a federal government shutdown, the interaction of SNAP changes with school meal eligibility, the practical difficulty of verifying fluctuating income (gig work), and whether state-funded alternatives could be used if federal SNAP benefit issuance stops. Deputy Commissioner Hadler told members the department is engaged in active conversations with Conduent and the Department of Labor on data frequency but cautioned that many federal reporting schedules are quarterly and that vendor or federal limitations may constrain more frequent automated feeds.

What lawmakers pressed the department to deliver: several members asked for town-by-town data showing counts of affected recipients, lists of pantries and FoodShare coverage, breakouts by age and household type, and more detailed fiscal estimates for administrative-cost changes the members heard would shift from a roughly 50/50 federal-state split toward greater state share. The department said it would provide the requested breakdowns and maps and that other agencies (Department of Agriculture, State Department of Education, Aging, Public Health) will be called to follow-up hearings to map the broader food-safety net.

What the department did not claim or conclude: Officials repeatedly said they were implementing federal guidance as issued and that they could not guarantee federal funds for LIHEAP beyond the near term. They also said any state-issued substitute benefits in a prolonged federal funding lapse would likely be state-funded with unclear prospects for federal reimbursement.

Ending: The Appropriations Committee kept the session informational and asked DSS to return with the requested town-level and program-by-program data. Committee members signaled intent to weigh options — including possible state budget actions or special-session proposals — once the detailed counts and fiscal implications are available.