House Finance Committee withdraws proposed loan‑from‑PCE fix for bulk fuel loan program

Co‑Chair Foster presided over the House Finance Committee on May 7, 2026, when Representative Bynum moved Amendment 1 to House Bill 388, a bill addressing the bulk fuel loan cap. The amendment, as explained by Bynum, would have allowed the bulk fuel loan program to borrow temporarily from the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) fund if the program’s balance dropped to zero and then repay PCE (including lost interest) as loan repayments returned.

Why it matters: Committee members said the amendment was intended as a short‑term relief valve to prevent communities from losing access to needed fuel loans during seasonal delivery cycles. Lawmakers flagged trade‑offs between permanently capitalizing the loan fund (tying up unrestricted general fund dollars) and creating a temporary borrowing mechanism that would require clear legal authority and drafting.

Representative Bynum described the aim as a temporary mechanism: “it was intended to create basically a loan to the bulk fuel program in the event that the fund were to run to a 0 balance,” and said the intent was to repay the PCE including any lost interest so “the fund becomes whole.” Several members, including Representative Schrage, said they preferred resolving technical and legal language before final adoption.

Legislative Finance staff warned of constitutional and practical limits on the executive branch’s borrowing. Alexi Painter of the Legislative Finance Division told the committee the Executive Branch can borrow from the Constitutional Budget Reserve to fulfill existing appropriations, but because the revolving loan fund issues loans without an appropriation, “they can’t just borrow to increase the amount they could loan.” In short, Painter said, expanding loan capacity requires an appropriation to the fund or department.

Members also discussed markets and timing: lawmakers noted fuel deliveries and loan demand are seasonal, and that the committee could consider one‑time capitalization (examples discussed included $15 million to $90 million) or leave a temporary mechanism to be resolved in conference if the committee agreed to move the bill. Legislative staff and agency witnesses provided data points used in the discussion: the fiscal note showed about $22,000,000 was available in the fund as of March 31, and forecasting scenarios suggested larger shortfalls if oil prices rose sharply (committee members cited illustrative numbers of roughly $94 million to $273 million over forecast under different price assumptions discussed in committee).

After extended discussion and consultation with legislative legal and agency staff, Representative Bynum withdrew Amendment 1. Co‑Chair Foster set HB 388 aside so legislative legal could clean up the text and the committee could revisit capitalization or temporary relief language later. “Amendment number 1 has been withdrawn,” Foster said; the bill was set aside for further work rather than advanced to a committee vote.

Next steps: HB 388 will be revised by legislative legal to address drafting and fiscal‑note implications, and the committee may revisit capital or temporary relief options in a future hearing or on the floor.