Water Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Direct Loan Financing

B1: P.L. 114-254, Section 197(a) provided a loan limit of $2,073,000,000. P.L 115-31 added $976,000,000, for a total loan limit of $3,049,000,000 for FY 2017. P.L. 115-141 provided a loan limit of $610,000,000, and Section 430 (4) (c) of that same bill provided an additional $6,100,000,000, for a total loan limit of $6,710,000,000 for FY 2018. P.L. 116-6 provided a loan limit of $610,000,000, and Section 429 (c) of that same bill provided an additional $6,700,000,000, for a total loan limit of $7,310,000,000 for FY 2019. P.L. 116-94 provided a loan limit of $11,500,000,000 for FY 2020. P.L.116-260 provided a loan limit of $12,500,000,000 for FY 2021. P.L.117-103 provided a loan limit of $12,500,000,000 for FY 2022. P.L. 117-328 provided a loan limit of $12,500,000,000 for FY 2023. The cumulative loan limit for WIFIA is $66,069,000,000 for FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019, FY 2020, FY 2021, FY 2022 and FY 2023.

B2: During FY 2018, EPA obligated these resources for the following loans: $134,500,000 supports a WIFIA direct loan for the Georgetown Wet Weather Treatment Station with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $443,850 in budget authority; $69,686,244 supports the Saddle Creek Retention Basin Facility with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $257,839 in budget authority; $135,000,000 supports the Orange County WD Groundwater Replenishment System with a subsidy rate of 0.55 percent and a subsidy cost of $742,500 in budget authority and $699,242,023 supports the San Francisco Biosolids Digester Facilities Project with a subsidy rate of 0.80 percent and a subsidy cost of $5,593,936 in budget authority. During FY 2019, EPA obligated these resources for the following loans: $614,000,000 supports the Pure Water San Diego Program Phase 1 Project with a subsidy rate of 1.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $7,859,200 in budget authority; $47,722,204 supports the Deer Creek Sanitary Tunnel Pump Station and Sanitary Relief Project with a subsidy rate of 0.69 percent and a subsidy cost of $329,283 in budget authority; $202,000,000 supports the Baltimore City Comprehensive Wastewater Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.96 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,939,200 in budget authority; $99,711,106 supports the Miami Dade Ocean Outfall Discharge Reduction Project with a subsidy rate of 3.07 percent and a subsidy cost of $3,061,131 in budget authority; $218,000,000 supports the Silicon Valley Clean Water Regional Environmental Sewer Conveyance Upgrade with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $937,400 in budget authority; $387,748,990 supports the Tualatin Valley Water District Willamette Water Supply Project with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,667,321 in budget authority; $250,523,385 supports the City of Hillsboro Willamette Water Supply Project with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,077,251 in budget authority; $268,710,610 supports the Narragansett Bay Commission CSO Phase III A Program with a subsidy rate of 0.95 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,552,751 in budget authority; and $349,000,000 supports the Indiana Finance Authority SRF Tranche 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.30 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,047,000 in budget authority; $87,000,000 supports the Indiana Finance Authority SRF Tranche 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.36 percent and a subsidy cost of $313,200 in budget authority; and $20,656,145 supports the City of Oak Ridge with a subsidy rate of 0.58 percent and a subsidy cost of $119,806 in budget authority (while EPA was authorized for this obligation during FY 2019, the actual obligation incurred during FY 2020). No changes are required on the program account for this loan transaction, only entries on the direct loan financing account. During FY 2020, EPA obligated these resources for the following loans: $40,106,000 supports the Toho Water Authority Accelerated Gravity Sewer Assessment & Rehabilitation Project with a subsidy rate 0.93 percent and a subsidy cost of $372,986 in budget authority; $59,140,612 supports the Coachella Valley Water District Stormwater Channel Project with a subsidy rate 0.29 percent and a subsidy cost of $171,508 in budget authority; $36,516,526 supports the City of Morro Bay Water Reclamation Facility - Water loan with a subsidy rate 0.51 percent and a subsidy cost of $186,234 in budget authority; $25,183,811 supports the City of Morro Bay Water Reclamation Facility - Sewer loan with a subsidy rate 0.84 percent and a subsidy cost of $211,544 in budget authority; $192,181,651 supports the Seattle Public Utilities - Seattle Ship Canal Water Quality Project with a subsidy rate 0.30 percent and a subsidy cost of $576,545 in budget authority; $16,178,752 supports the City of Cortland - Clinton Avenue Gateway Project with a subsidy rate of 0.5 percent and a subsidy cost of $80,894; $280,860,714 supports the City of Wichita - Northwest Water Treatment Facility with a subsidy rate of 0.36% and a subsidy cost of $1,011,099; $156,000,000 supports the City of Memphis - T.E. Maxson WWTF Process & Biosolids Program with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent and a subsidy cost of $764,400; 196,436,445 supports the Inland Empire Utilities Agency - Regional Plant 5 Expansion Project with a subsidy rate of 1.02 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,003,652; $326,218,943 supports the Miami Dade - Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical Distribution Upgrades with a subsidy rate of 2.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $7,666,145; 513,861,981 supports the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission - Southeast Treatment Plant Improve+B16ments with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,466,538; $699,242,023 supports the re-obligation of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission - Biosolids Digester Facilities Project that was originally approved in 2018, with a subsidy rate of 0.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $3,076,665; $44,204,486 supports the City of North Miami Beach - Norwood Water Treatment Plant Upgrade with a subsidy rate of 0.61 percent and a subsidy cost of $269,647; $235,207,751 supports the Miami Dade - South District WW Treatment Plant Expansion with a subsidy rate of 2.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $5,527,382; $20,000,000 supports the City of Tacoma - Central Treatment Plant Electrical Distribution System with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $56,000; $137,100,000 supports the City of Waukesha - Great Lake Water Supply Project with a subsidy rate of 0.31 percent and a subsidy cost of $425,010; $135,000,000 supports the re-obligation of the Orange County Water District - Groundwater Replenishment System Expansion Project that was originally approved in 2018, with a subsidy rate of 0.56 percent and a subsidy cost of $756,000; $348,635,000 supports the Salt Lake City - Salt Lake City Water Reclamation Facility Nutrient Project with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent and a subsidy cost of $871,588; $108,000,000 supports the City of Stockton - Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modification Project with a subsidy rate of 0.54 percent and a subsidy cost of $583,200; $614,000,000 supports the re-obligation of the City of San Diego - Pure Water San Diego Program Phase I that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 1.22 percent and a subsidy cost of $7,490,800; $61,949,715 supports the City of Atlanta Master Agreement - North Folk Tank and Pump Station with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $204,434; $69,115,487 supports the City of Oceanside with a subsidy rate of 0.24 percent and a subsidy cost of $165,877; $250,523,385 supports the re-obligation of the City of Hillsboro - Willamette Water Supply Program that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.26 percent and a subsidy cost of $651,361; $387,748,990 supports the re-obligation of the Tualatin Valley Water District - Willamette Water Supply Program that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent and a subsidy cost of $969,372; $225,865,648 supports the Hampton Roads Sanitary District Master Agreement - James River Treatment Plant with a subsidy rate of 1.03 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,326,416; and $88,974,400 supports the Soquel Creek Water District - Pure Water Soquel with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $382,590. During FY 2020, EPA was authorized to obligate the resources but the actual obligations occur in FY 2021 for the following loans: $265,000,000 supports Dekalb County - Sewer Assessment & Rehabilitation, Trunk Sewer Upsizing & Water Main Replacement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $980,500; and $96,926,900 supports Louisville and Jefferson County Sewer District - Biosolids Processing Solution Project with a subsidy rate of 0.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $426,478. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions, only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B3: During FY 2021, EPA was authorized to use these resources for the following loans: $220,638,996 supports the City of Sunnyvale Clean Water Program Phase 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.42 percent and a subsidy cost of $926,684 in budget authority; $190,633,824 supports the Narragansett Bay Commission Bucklin Point Resiliency Project with a subsidy rate 0.46 percent and a subsidy cost of $876,916 in budget authority; $268,710,610 supports the re-obligation of the Narragansett Bay Commission CSO Phase III Project that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.41 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,101,714 in budget; $210,339,360 supports the City of San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant with a subsidy rate 0.34 percent and a subsidy cost of $715,154 in budget authority; $66,860,640 supports the Foster City Wastewater Treatment Plant with a subsidy rate 0.30 percent and a subsidy cost of $200,582 in budget authority; $85,140,000 supports the City of San Mateo Basins 2 and 3 Collections Improvement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $280,962; $218,000,000 supports the re-obligation of the Silicon Valley Clean Water Regional Environmental Sewer Conveyance Upgrade which was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.46 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,002,800; $569,000,000 supports the Metro Flood Diversion Authority Stormwater Diversion Channel and Associated Project with a subsidy rate of 0.87 percent and a subsidy cost of $4,950,300; $81,103,011 supports the City of Beaverton Water Supply Improvement Program with a subsidy rate of 0.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $356,853; $96,844,511 supports the King County Ship Canal Water Quality Project with a subsidy rate of 0.31 percent and a subsidy cost of $300,218; $320,992,641 supports the Alex Renew River Renew Tunnel System project with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,123,474; $17,850,000 supports the Downriver Utility Wastewater Authority Biosolids Dryer Facility with a subsidy rate of 1.22 percent and a subsidy cost of $217,770; $726,600,000 supports the City of Portland Bull Run Treatment Program Project with a subsidy rate of 1.54 percent and a subsidy cost of $11,189,640; and $156,367,104 supports the DC Water Comprehensive Infrastructure Repair Rehabilitation and Replacement Program project with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $437,828; $48,690,000 supports the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Imperiled Water Supply Rehabilitation project with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $233,712; $33,404,367 supports the City of Roseville Water Future Initiative project with a subsidy rate of 0.38 percent and a subsidy cost of $126,937; $387,533,169 supports the East County Advanced Water Purification Project with a subsidy rate of 0.55 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,131,432; $223,921,010 supports the City of Los Angeles D.C. Tillman Advanced Water Purification Facility with a subsidy rate of 1.15 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,575,092; $119,500,000 supports City of San Diego II Pure Water Program Phase I North City Project with a subsidy rate of 1.11 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,326,450; $24,500,000 supports Oro Loma Sanitary District Sewer Collection System Pipeline Rehabilitation & Replacement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $90,650; $249,986,207 supports Springfield Water & Sewer Commission Water & Wastewater Infrastructure Renewal Program with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,199,934; $68,904,163 supports Silicon Valley Clean Water Regional Environmental Sewer Conveyance with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent and a subsidy cost of $337,630; $73,840,436 supports Silicon Valley Clean Water Wastewater Treatment Plant Reliability Upgrades with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $354,434 and $130,647,383 supports Orange County Water District PFAS Treatment Project with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent and a subsidy cost of $640,172; $424,241,220 supports Miami Dade County North District and Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant Ocean Outfall Legislation Projects with a subsidy rate of 2.08 percent and a subsidy cost of $8,824,217; and $476,581,587 supports the Hampton Roads Sanitary District SWIFT Tranche II with a subsidy rate of 1.19% and a subsidy cost of $5,671,321. During FY 2021, EPA was authorized to obligate the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank loan in an amount of $221,323,600, with a subsidy rate of .28 and subsidy amount of $619,706. The actual obligation of this loan will occur in FY 2022. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions, only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B4: During FY 2022, EPA was authorized to use these resources for the following loans: $13,800,000 supports the Water Authority of Great Neck North with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $38,640 in budget authority; $20,386,000 supports the City of Evanston with a subsidy rate 0.31 percent and a subsidy cost of $63,197 in budget authority; $275,000,000 supports the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans with a subsidy rate of 0.59 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,622,500 in budget authority; $192,609,603 supports the City of Baltimore Water Utility with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $674,133.61; $160,775,453 supports the City of Baltimore Wastewater Utility with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent with a subsidy cost of $562,714.09 in budget authority; $42,460,591 supports the City of Baltimore Stormwater Utility with a subsidy rate of 0.36 percent and a subsidy cost of $152,858 in budget authority; $105,410,000 supports Sarasota County with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent with a subsidy cost of $368,935 in budget authority; $81,215,031 supports Sacramento County with a subsidy rate of 0.46 percent with a subsidy cost of $373,589 in budget authority; $22,883,000 supports Erie County with a subsidy rate of 0.26 percent with a subsidy cost of $59,496 in budget authority; $41,615,374 supports Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District with a subsidy rate of 0.30 percent with a subsidy cost of $124,846 in budget authority; $249,660,876 supports Union Sanitary District with a subsidy rate of 0.50 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,248,304 in budget authority; $27,381,175 supports Medford Water Commission - Phase 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent with a subsidy cost of $117,739.05; $69,407,135 supports Medford Water Commission - Phase 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.36 percent with a subsidy cost of $249,865.69; $30,419,935 supports Rockwood Water People's Utility District with subsidy rate of 0.44 percent with a subsidy cost of $133,848; $120,000,000 supports Inland Empire Utilities Agency 2 with a subsidy rate of 1.17 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,404,000; $87,465,000 supports the City of Joliet Master Agreement - Alternative Water Supply Program - Phase 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.94 percent with a subsidy cost of $822,171; $220,989,947 supports the City of Joliet Master Agreement - Alternative Water Supply Program - Phase 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.87 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,922,613; $34,078,873 supports the City of Gresham with a subsidy of 0.44 percent with a subsidy cost of $149,947; $21,584,500 supports the City of Englewood - Sewer with a subsidy rate of 0.42 percent with a subsidy cost of $90,655; $38,416,490 supports the City of Englewood - Water with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent with a subsidy cost of $165,191; $284,175,135 supports Dekalb County 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.38 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,079,866; $281,260,000 supports Johnson County with a subsidy rate of 0.30 percent with a subsidy cost of $843,780; $75,000,000 supports Howard County with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent with a subsidy cost of $187,500; $78,244,922 supports the City of Oceanside - Sewer with a subsidy rate of 0.32 percent with a subsidy cost of $250,384; $441,169,005 supports the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,235,273; $48,265,202 supports the City of Oxnard with a subsidy rate of 0.89 percent with a subsidy cost of $429,560; $52,049,683 supports the City of Pflugerville with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent with a subsidy cost of $255,043.45; $55,499,228 supports the Narragansett Bay Commission Loan 3 with a subsidy rate of 0.51 percent with a subsidy cost of $283,046.06; $225,110,226 supports the San Diego - Stormwater with a subsidy rate of 0.53 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,193,084.20; $18,972,800 supports the Helix Water District with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent with a subsidy cost of $66,404.80; $315,000,000 supports the Metro Water Services - Nashville with a subsidy rate 0.39 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,228,500.00. The actual obligation of the loan to the City of Pflugerville will occur in FY 2023. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B5: During FY 2023, EPA was authorized to use these resources for the following loans: $41,327,580.00 supports Santa Clara Valley Water District's Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.55 percent and a subsidy cost of $227,301.69; $186,080,000.00 supports the City of Chattanooga with a subsidy rate of 1.24 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,307,392.00; $263,903,041.00 supports the City of Boise Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $923,660.64; $135,449,158.00 supports the city of Boise Loan 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $474,072.05; $500,000,000 supports the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,250,000.00; $19,828,124.00 supports the City of Philadelphia with a subsidy rate of 0.41 percent and a subsidy cost of $81,295.31; $76,664,252.00 supports the Monterey One Water with a subsidy rate of 0.54 percent and a subsidy cost of $413,986.96; $73,904,324.00 supports Santa Clara Valley Water Utility - Anderson Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.59 percent and a subsidy cost of $436,035.51; $91,581,116.00 supports Santa Clara Valley Water Utility - Pacheco Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.62 percent and a subsidy cost of $567,802.92; $81,411,193.00 supports the Yucaipa Valley Water District Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 2.06 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,677,070.58; $168,571,405.00 supports Poseidon Resources - Carlsbad with a subsidy rate of 1.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,427,428.23; $369,335,021.00 supports San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Loan 3 with a subsidy rate of 0.42 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,551,207.09; $110,268,463.00 supports the City of San Buenaventura WaterPure - Wastewater project with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $407,993.31; $63,609,074.00 supports the City of San Buenaventura WaterPure - Water project with a subsidy rate of 0.38 percent and a subsidy cost of $241,714.48; $191,481,121.00 supports the City of Wichita's Loan 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.50 percent and a subsidy cost of $957,405.61; $336,000,000.00 supports the City of Chicago with a subsidy rate of 0.82 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,755,200.00; $127,730,000.00 supports the City of Santa Cruz - Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 1.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,724,355.00; $222,802,928.00 supports the Polk Regional Water Commission - Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 1.21 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,695,915.43; $82,996,513.00 supports the Polk Regional Water Commission - Loan 2 with a subsidy rate of 1.22 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,012,557.46; $52,475,722.00 supports the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority with a subsidy rate of 2.69 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,411,596.92; $69,818,796.00 supports the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $195,492.63; $16,311,537.00 supports Oregon City with a subsidy rate of 0.27 percent and a subsidy cost of $44,041.15; $13,594,645.00 supports United Water Conservation District with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $65,254.30; $119,994,028 supports Fort Lauderdale with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $395,980.29; $330,000,000.00 supports St. Louis MSD with a subsidy rate of 0.98 percent and a subsidy cost of $3,234,000.00. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions, only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B6: Pursuant to the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 33 USC 3909, Section 5030, and 33 USC 3908, Section 5029, the Administrator of EPA may collect and spend fees at a level that is sufficient to cover: (a) the costs of services of expert firms; (b) all or a portion of the costs to the Federal Government of servicing the Federal credit instruments. P.L. 117-328 provides WIFIA authority to collect fees to be credited to the appropriation and remain available until expended."

B1: P.L. 114-254, Section 197(a) provided a loan limit of $2,073,000,000. P.L 115-31 added $976,000,000, for a total loan limit of $3,049,000,000 for FY 2017. P.L. 115-141 provided a loan limit of $610,000,000, and Section 430 (4) (c) of that same bill provided an additional $6,100,000,000, for a total loan limit of $6,710,000,000 for FY 2018. P.L. 116-6 provided a loan limit of $610,000,000, and Section 429 (c) of that same bill provided an additional $6,700,000,000, for a total loan limit of $7,310,000,000 for FY 2019. P.L. 116-94 provided a loan limit of $11,500,000,000 for FY 2020. P.L.116-260 provided a loan limit of $12,500,000,000 for FY 2021. P.L.117-103 provided a loan limit of $12,500,000,000 for FY 2022. P.L. 117-328 provided a loan limit of $12,500,000,000 for FY 2023. The cumulative loan limit for WIFIA is $66,069,000,000 for FY 2017, FY 2018, FY 2019, FY 2020, FY 2021, FY 2022 and FY 2023.

B2: During FY 2018, EPA obligated these resources for the following loans: $134,500,000 supports a WIFIA direct loan for the Georgetown Wet Weather Treatment Station with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $443,850 in budget authority; $69,686,244 supports the Saddle Creek Retention Basin Facility with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $257,839 in budget authority; $135,000,000 supports the Orange County WD Groundwater Replenishment System with a subsidy rate of 0.55 percent and a subsidy cost of $742,500 in budget authority and $699,242,023 supports the San Francisco Biosolids Digester Facilities Project with a subsidy rate of 0.80 percent and a subsidy cost of $5,593,936 in budget authority. During FY 2019, EPA obligated these resources for the following loans: $614,000,000 supports the Pure Water San Diego Program Phase 1 Project with a subsidy rate of 1.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $7,859,200 in budget authority; $47,722,204 supports the Deer Creek Sanitary Tunnel Pump Station and Sanitary Relief Project with a subsidy rate of 0.69 percent and a subsidy cost of $329,283 in budget authority; $202,000,000 supports the Baltimore City Comprehensive Wastewater Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.96 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,939,200 in budget authority; $99,711,106 supports the Miami Dade Ocean Outfall Discharge Reduction Project with a subsidy rate of 3.07 percent and a subsidy cost of $3,061,131 in budget authority; $218,000,000 supports the Silicon Valley Clean Water Regional Environmental Sewer Conveyance Upgrade with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $937,400 in budget authority; $387,748,990 supports the Tualatin Valley Water District Willamette Water Supply Project with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,667,321 in budget authority; $250,523,385 supports the City of Hillsboro Willamette Water Supply Project with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,077,251 in budget authority; $268,710,610 supports the Narragansett Bay Commission CSO Phase III A Program with a subsidy rate of 0.95 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,552,751 in budget authority; and $349,000,000 supports the Indiana Finance Authority SRF Tranche 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.30 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,047,000 in budget authority; $87,000,000 supports the Indiana Finance Authority SRF Tranche 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.36 percent and a subsidy cost of $313,200 in budget authority; and $20,656,145 supports the City of Oak Ridge with a subsidy rate of 0.58 percent and a subsidy cost of $119,806 in budget authority (while EPA was authorized for this obligation during FY 2019, the actual obligation incurred during FY 2020). No changes are required on the program account for this loan transaction, only entries on the direct loan financing account. During FY 2020, EPA obligated these resources for the following loans: $40,106,000 supports the Toho Water Authority Accelerated Gravity Sewer Assessment & Rehabilitation Project with a subsidy rate 0.93 percent and a subsidy cost of $372,986 in budget authority; $59,140,612 supports the Coachella Valley Water District Stormwater Channel Project with a subsidy rate 0.29 percent and a subsidy cost of $171,508 in budget authority; $36,516,526 supports the City of Morro Bay Water Reclamation Facility - Water loan with a subsidy rate 0.51 percent and a subsidy cost of $186,234 in budget authority; $25,183,811 supports the City of Morro Bay Water Reclamation Facility - Sewer loan with a subsidy rate 0.84 percent and a subsidy cost of $211,544 in budget authority; $192,181,651 supports the Seattle Public Utilities - Seattle Ship Canal Water Quality Project with a subsidy rate 0.30 percent and a subsidy cost of $576,545 in budget authority; $16,178,752 supports the City of Cortland - Clinton Avenue Gateway Project with a subsidy rate of 0.5 percent and a subsidy cost of $80,894; $280,860,714 supports the City of Wichita - Northwest Water Treatment Facility with a subsidy rate of 0.36% and a subsidy cost of $1,011,099; $156,000,000 supports the City of Memphis - T.E. Maxson WWTF Process & Biosolids Program with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent and a subsidy cost of $764,400; 196,436,445 supports the Inland Empire Utilities Agency - Regional Plant 5 Expansion Project with a subsidy rate of 1.02 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,003,652; $326,218,943 supports the Miami Dade - Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical Distribution Upgrades with a subsidy rate of 2.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $7,666,145; 513,861,981 supports the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission - Southeast Treatment Plant Improve+B16ments with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,466,538; $699,242,023 supports the re-obligation of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission - Biosolids Digester Facilities Project that was originally approved in 2018, with a subsidy rate of 0.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $3,076,665; $44,204,486 supports the City of North Miami Beach - Norwood Water Treatment Plant Upgrade with a subsidy rate of 0.61 percent and a subsidy cost of $269,647; $235,207,751 supports the Miami Dade - South District WW Treatment Plant Expansion with a subsidy rate of 2.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $5,527,382; $20,000,000 supports the City of Tacoma - Central Treatment Plant Electrical Distribution System with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $56,000; $137,100,000 supports the City of Waukesha - Great Lake Water Supply Project with a subsidy rate of 0.31 percent and a subsidy cost of $425,010; $135,000,000 supports the re-obligation of the Orange County Water District - Groundwater Replenishment System Expansion Project that was originally approved in 2018, with a subsidy rate of 0.56 percent and a subsidy cost of $756,000; $348,635,000 supports the Salt Lake City - Salt Lake City Water Reclamation Facility Nutrient Project with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent and a subsidy cost of $871,588; $108,000,000 supports the City of Stockton - Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modification Project with a subsidy rate of 0.54 percent and a subsidy cost of $583,200; $614,000,000 supports the re-obligation of the City of San Diego - Pure Water San Diego Program Phase I that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 1.22 percent and a subsidy cost of $7,490,800; $61,949,715 supports the City of Atlanta Master Agreement - North Folk Tank and Pump Station with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $204,434; $69,115,487 supports the City of Oceanside with a subsidy rate of 0.24 percent and a subsidy cost of $165,877; $250,523,385 supports the re-obligation of the City of Hillsboro - Willamette Water Supply Program that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.26 percent and a subsidy cost of $651,361; $387,748,990 supports the re-obligation of the Tualatin Valley Water District - Willamette Water Supply Program that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent and a subsidy cost of $969,372; $225,865,648 supports the Hampton Roads Sanitary District Master Agreement - James River Treatment Plant with a subsidy rate of 1.03 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,326,416; and $88,974,400 supports the Soquel Creek Water District - Pure Water Soquel with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent and a subsidy cost of $382,590. During FY 2020, EPA was authorized to obligate the resources but the actual obligations occur in FY 2021 for the following loans: $265,000,000 supports Dekalb County - Sewer Assessment & Rehabilitation, Trunk Sewer Upsizing & Water Main Replacement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $980,500; and $96,926,900 supports Louisville and Jefferson County Sewer District - Biosolids Processing Solution Project with a subsidy rate of 0.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $426,478. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions, only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B3: During FY 2021, EPA was authorized to use these resources for the following loans: $220,638,996 supports the City of Sunnyvale Clean Water Program Phase 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.42 percent and a subsidy cost of $926,684 in budget authority; $190,633,824 supports the Narragansett Bay Commission Bucklin Point Resiliency Project with a subsidy rate 0.46 percent and a subsidy cost of $876,916 in budget authority; $268,710,610 supports the re-obligation of the Narragansett Bay Commission CSO Phase III Project that was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.41 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,101,714 in budget; $210,339,360 supports the City of San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant with a subsidy rate 0.34 percent and a subsidy cost of $715,154 in budget authority; $66,860,640 supports the Foster City Wastewater Treatment Plant with a subsidy rate 0.30 percent and a subsidy cost of $200,582 in budget authority; $85,140,000 supports the City of San Mateo Basins 2 and 3 Collections Improvement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $280,962; $218,000,000 supports the re-obligation of the Silicon Valley Clean Water Regional Environmental Sewer Conveyance Upgrade which was originally approved in 2019, with a subsidy rate of 0.46 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,002,800; $569,000,000 supports the Metro Flood Diversion Authority Stormwater Diversion Channel and Associated Project with a subsidy rate of 0.87 percent and a subsidy cost of $4,950,300; $81,103,011 supports the City of Beaverton Water Supply Improvement Program with a subsidy rate of 0.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $356,853; $96,844,511 supports the King County Ship Canal Water Quality Project with a subsidy rate of 0.31 percent and a subsidy cost of $300,218; $320,992,641 supports the Alex Renew River Renew Tunnel System project with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,123,474; $17,850,000 supports the Downriver Utility Wastewater Authority Biosolids Dryer Facility with a subsidy rate of 1.22 percent and a subsidy cost of $217,770; $726,600,000 supports the City of Portland Bull Run Treatment Program Project with a subsidy rate of 1.54 percent and a subsidy cost of $11,189,640; and $156,367,104 supports the DC Water Comprehensive Infrastructure Repair Rehabilitation and Replacement Program project with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $437,828; $48,690,000 supports the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Imperiled Water Supply Rehabilitation project with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $233,712; $33,404,367 supports the City of Roseville Water Future Initiative project with a subsidy rate of 0.38 percent and a subsidy cost of $126,937; $387,533,169 supports the East County Advanced Water Purification Project with a subsidy rate of 0.55 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,131,432; $223,921,010 supports the City of Los Angeles D.C. Tillman Advanced Water Purification Facility with a subsidy rate of 1.15 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,575,092; $119,500,000 supports City of San Diego II Pure Water Program Phase I North City Project with a subsidy rate of 1.11 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,326,450; $24,500,000 supports Oro Loma Sanitary District Sewer Collection System Pipeline Rehabilitation & Replacement Project with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $90,650; $249,986,207 supports Springfield Water & Sewer Commission Water & Wastewater Infrastructure Renewal Program with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,199,934; $68,904,163 supports Silicon Valley Clean Water Regional Environmental Sewer Conveyance with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent and a subsidy cost of $337,630; $73,840,436 supports Silicon Valley Clean Water Wastewater Treatment Plant Reliability Upgrades with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $354,434 and $130,647,383 supports Orange County Water District PFAS Treatment Project with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent and a subsidy cost of $640,172; $424,241,220 supports Miami Dade County North District and Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant Ocean Outfall Legislation Projects with a subsidy rate of 2.08 percent and a subsidy cost of $8,824,217; and $476,581,587 supports the Hampton Roads Sanitary District SWIFT Tranche II with a subsidy rate of 1.19% and a subsidy cost of $5,671,321. During FY 2021, EPA was authorized to obligate the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank loan in an amount of $221,323,600, with a subsidy rate of .28 and subsidy amount of $619,706. The actual obligation of this loan will occur in FY 2022. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions, only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B4: During FY 2022, EPA was authorized to use these resources for the following loans: $13,800,000 supports the Water Authority of Great Neck North with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $38,640 in budget authority; $20,386,000 supports the City of Evanston with a subsidy rate 0.31 percent and a subsidy cost of $63,197 in budget authority; $275,000,000 supports the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans with a subsidy rate of 0.59 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,622,500 in budget authority; $192,609,603 supports the City of Baltimore Water Utility with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $674,133.61; $160,775,453 supports the City of Baltimore Wastewater Utility with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent with a subsidy cost of $562,714.09 in budget authority; $42,460,591 supports the City of Baltimore Stormwater Utility with a subsidy rate of 0.36 percent and a subsidy cost of $152,858 in budget authority; $105,410,000 supports Sarasota County with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent with a subsidy cost of $368,935 in budget authority; $81,215,031 supports Sacramento County with a subsidy rate of 0.46 percent with a subsidy cost of $373,589 in budget authority; $22,883,000 supports Erie County with a subsidy rate of 0.26 percent with a subsidy cost of $59,496 in budget authority; $41,615,374 supports Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District with a subsidy rate of 0.30 percent with a subsidy cost of $124,846 in budget authority; $249,660,876 supports Union Sanitary District with a subsidy rate of 0.50 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,248,304 in budget authority; $27,381,175 supports Medford Water Commission - Phase 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent with a subsidy cost of $117,739.05; $69,407,135 supports Medford Water Commission - Phase 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.36 percent with a subsidy cost of $249,865.69; $30,419,935 supports Rockwood Water People's Utility District with subsidy rate of 0.44 percent with a subsidy cost of $133,848; $120,000,000 supports Inland Empire Utilities Agency 2 with a subsidy rate of 1.17 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,404,000; $87,465,000 supports the City of Joliet Master Agreement - Alternative Water Supply Program - Phase 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.94 percent with a subsidy cost of $822,171; $220,989,947 supports the City of Joliet Master Agreement - Alternative Water Supply Program - Phase 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.87 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,922,613; $34,078,873 supports the City of Gresham with a subsidy of 0.44 percent with a subsidy cost of $149,947; $21,584,500 supports the City of Englewood - Sewer with a subsidy rate of 0.42 percent with a subsidy cost of $90,655; $38,416,490 supports the City of Englewood - Water with a subsidy rate of 0.43 percent with a subsidy cost of $165,191; $284,175,135 supports Dekalb County 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.38 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,079,866; $281,260,000 supports Johnson County with a subsidy rate of 0.30 percent with a subsidy cost of $843,780; $75,000,000 supports Howard County with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent with a subsidy cost of $187,500; $78,244,922 supports the City of Oceanside - Sewer with a subsidy rate of 0.32 percent with a subsidy cost of $250,384; $441,169,005 supports the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,235,273; $48,265,202 supports the City of Oxnard with a subsidy rate of 0.89 percent with a subsidy cost of $429,560; $52,049,683 supports the City of Pflugerville with a subsidy rate of 0.49 percent with a subsidy cost of $255,043.45; $55,499,228 supports the Narragansett Bay Commission Loan 3 with a subsidy rate of 0.51 percent with a subsidy cost of $283,046.06; $225,110,226 supports the San Diego - Stormwater with a subsidy rate of 0.53 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,193,084.20; $18,972,800 supports the Helix Water District with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent with a subsidy cost of $66,404.80; $315,000,000 supports the Metro Water Services - Nashville with a subsidy rate 0.39 percent with a subsidy cost of $1,228,500.00. The actual obligation of the loan to the City of Pflugerville will occur in FY 2023. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B5: During FY 2023, EPA was authorized to use these resources for the following loans: $41,327,580.00 supports Santa Clara Valley Water District's Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.55 percent and a subsidy cost of $227,301.69; $186,080,000.00 supports the City of Chattanooga with a subsidy rate of 1.24 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,307,392.00; $263,903,041.00 supports the City of Boise Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $923,660.64; $135,449,158.00 supports the city of Boise Loan 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $474,072.05; $500,000,000 supports the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank with a subsidy rate of 0.25 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,250,000.00; $19,828,124.00 supports the City of Philadelphia with a subsidy rate of 0.41 percent and a subsidy cost of $81,295.31; $76,664,252.00 supports the Monterey One Water with a subsidy rate of 0.54 percent and a subsidy cost of $413,986.96; $73,904,324.00 supports Santa Clara Valley Water Utility - Anderson Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.59 percent and a subsidy cost of $436,035.51; $91,581,116.00 supports Santa Clara Valley Water Utility - Pacheco Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 0.62 percent and a subsidy cost of $567,802.92; $81,411,193.00 supports the Yucaipa Valley Water District Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 2.06 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,677,070.58; $168,571,405.00 supports Poseidon Resources - Carlsbad with a subsidy rate of 1.44 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,427,428.23; $369,335,021.00 supports San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Loan 3 with a subsidy rate of 0.42 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,551,207.09; $110,268,463.00 supports the City of San Buenaventura WaterPure - Wastewater project with a subsidy rate of 0.37 percent and a subsidy cost of $407,993.31; $63,609,074.00 supports the City of San Buenaventura WaterPure - Water project with a subsidy rate of 0.38 percent and a subsidy cost of $241,714.48; $191,481,121.00 supports the City of Wichita's Loan 2 with a subsidy rate of 0.50 percent and a subsidy cost of $957,405.61; $336,000,000.00 supports the City of Chicago with a subsidy rate of 0.82 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,755,200.00; $127,730,000.00 supports the City of Santa Cruz - Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 1.35 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,724,355.00; $222,802,928.00 supports the Polk Regional Water Commission - Loan 1 with a subsidy rate of 1.21 percent and a subsidy cost of $2,695,915.43; $82,996,513.00 supports the Polk Regional Water Commission - Loan 2 with a subsidy rate of 1.22 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,012,557.46; $52,475,722.00 supports the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority with a subsidy rate of 2.69 percent and a subsidy cost of $1,411,596.92; $69,818,796.00 supports the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District with a subsidy rate of 0.28 percent and a subsidy cost of $195,492.63; $16,311,537.00 supports Oregon City with a subsidy rate of 0.27 percent and a subsidy cost of $44,041.15; $13,594,645.00 supports United Water Conservation District with a subsidy rate of 0.48 percent and a subsidy cost of $65,254.30; $119,994,028 supports Fort Lauderdale with a subsidy rate of 0.33 percent and a subsidy cost of $395,980.29; $330,000,000.00 supports St. Louis MSD with a subsidy rate of 0.98 percent and a subsidy cost of $3,234,000.00. No changes are required on the program account for these loan transactions, only entries on the direct loan financing account.

B6: Pursuant to the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 33 USC 3909, Section 5030, and 33 USC 3908, Section 5029, the Administrator of EPA may collect and spend fees at a level that is sufficient to cover: (a) the costs of services of expert firms; (b) all or a portion of the costs to the Federal Government of servicing the Federal credit instruments. P.L. 117-328 provides WIFIA authority to collect fees to be credited to the appropriation and remain available until expended."

A1: All funding amounts provided for obligation to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for direct loans administered under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program are apportioned for the fiscal year, and available for obligation under Category B at such time as the subsidy costs for each project are determined in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), as amended. Rationale: Footnote specifies when the funds are available for obligation pursuant to legal authority.

A2: The listed subsidy rates, subsidy amounts and loan amounts are notional. The final subsidy rates and subsidy amounts are subject to OMB revision based upon receipt of the final rating opinion letters prior to final acceptance and financing of the WIFIA loans per 33 U.S.C § 3907(a)(1)(D)(ii). Rationale: An agency spend plan or other documentation is necessary to better understand how the agency intends to obligate some or all of the apportioned funds.