Witnesses urge WIFIA and SRF tweaks to help small and rural systems access financing

Multiple witnesses told the subcommittee that WIFIA and SRF can be improved to better reach small and rural utilities. Jeff Walker and others said the WIFIA program often favors larger, sophisticated borrowers because of up‑front costs and matching requirements.

Walker said small systems ‘‘just can't afford’’ the upfront burdens. He noted a nonrefundable WIFIA application fee, consulting costs for EPA participation, and the program’s usual limit of financing up to 49% of a project, which requires borrowers to secure other capital for the remainder. "It works great for a large, sophisticated community, but it's really not good for small communities," Walker said.

Mike Matydich of Jacobs highlighted administrative reforms that have already improved WIFIA: allowing combined project applications, the introduction of master agreements to approve multiple tranches over a multi‑year construction schedule, and post‑award rate renegotiation when market rates drop. Matydich said 11 loan awardees had renegotiated rates, saving an estimated $1,500,000,000 in interest costs.

Matydich and other panelists proposed several specific steps to expand accessibility: subsidized WIFIA interest rates for small systems (for example, a rate linked to two‑thirds of the Treasury rate), expanded preconstruction financing to demonstrate readiness, broader use of WIFIA master agreements and SRF programmatic financing, and increased technical assistance through EPA environmental finance centers or state programs.

Industry witnesses and state SRF representatives also recommended more flexible state roles in prioritizing projects and reducing duplicative mandates. Dan Buckley said grant application requirements are often the most tedious part for small utilities lacking grant writing capacity.

Members asked for follow‑up with concrete proposals; witnesses agreed to provide additional detail in writing.