In a letter sent Wednesday to state regulators, Green Mountain Power promised to pass on the proceeds of the Trump tax cut law to its customers.

The law, which took effect this month, cuts corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent. As a subsidiary of a shareholder-owned corporation, Green Mountain Power will get the benefit of that tax cut.

Utility president and CEO Mary Powell wrote to Department of Public Service Commissioner June Tierney that company staff are still determining how much GMP will save.

"We plan to share that calculation with you and the Public Utility Commission and then return 100 percent of the tax benefit to customers," Powell wrote. "We will also include the new tax rate in future proposed rates. "

Gov. Phil Scott held a press conference Wednesday afternoon that his office promised would "detail" his plan for spending the state's share of funds from Volkswagen's legal settlement for cheating emission tests. The event itself was short on detail and provided only the bare bones of an actual plan, leaving many crucial issues wide open.

Vermont is expected to receive $18.7 million over the next three years from the national fund. The money is supposed to help reduce nitrous oxide emissions from diesel-powered vehicles. Within that broad mission, it can be spent in a number of ways.

On Wednesday, the administration announced three broad principles for spending the money, and a general outline of which transportation sectors would be eligible to apply for VW settlement funding. The full proposal is available on the Agency of Natural Resources website.

Some background: The $18.7 million cannot be spent on personal or private vehicles — it's devoted to industrial and commercial vehicles such as trucks, buses, construction equipment, ferries, tugboats, and service vehicles used at airports and rail yards. The money can be spent on replacing diesel vehicles with electric ones, or replacing older diesel vehicles with modern, cleaner diesel engines. And up to 15 percent of the fund can be spent on electric-vehicle charging infrastructure.

After yet another lengthy meeting full of intensive questioning, a panel of state lawmakers appeared to run out of steam and, in a couple of quick voice votes, on Thursday approved a set of sound rules for wind turbines crafted by the Vermont Public Utility Commission.

The eight-member Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules gave its final approval on a voice vote with only two dissenters: committee chair Sen. Mark MacDonald (D-Orange) and Rep. Robin Chesnut-Tangerman (P/D-Middletown Springs).

Two members who were openly skeptical of the rules and asked numerous questions of PUC officials — Sen. Michael Sirotkin (D-Chittenden) and Rep. Mike Yantachka (D-Charlotte) — either voted to approve the rules or abstained. No roll call was taken. Sen. Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden), a vocal supporter of large-scale wind energy, left the meeting before the votes were taken.

The final rules retained the key PUC standard, which imposes a sound limit of 42 decibels during daytime hours and 39 dB at night. The PUC did remove a setback requirement for siting wind turbines, which would have mandated a buffer between a turbine and any occupied structure of at least 10 times the height of the turbine.

After kicking the can down the road at its previous meeting on June 22, the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules has put off action for two more weeks on new rules that set noise limits for wind turbines.

The rules were crafted by the Public Utility Commission (formerly the Public Service Board), and have been criticized by advocates on both sides of the wind issue. Opponents of large-scale wind say the rules are too permissive, while renewable energy advocates say they would comprise an effective moratorium on large turbines.

The rules must be approved by LCAR, which is often a formality. In this case, it’s anything but. The panel met Thursday, the first time since June when all eight members could be present. But they were clearly undecided on a number of questions. After a nearly four-hour hearing, LCAR and representatives of the PUC agreed to a two-week delay to allow the commission to provide more information.

It was clear from the questioning that there’s a solid majority of LCAR that is inclined to reject the rules. Only its two Republican members — Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) and Rep. Linda Myers (R-Essex) — appear to favor them.

Opponents of ridgeline wind provided a striking visual display at the hearing, as they faced the committee wearing their trademark lime-green vests. It was an impressive sight, but there were only 22 of them in the room. And they didn’t change anybody’s mind.

LCAR members expressed three primary areas of skepticism. First was the noise limit of 42 decibels in daytime and 39 at night.

“Other states have significantly higher decibel limits: 45, 50, 60,” noted LCAR chair Sen. Mark MacDonald (D-Orange). “We’d be the most restrictive of any state in the country. I’d be alarmed if the commission proposed the most permissive numbers; I’m equally concerned that they come in as the lowest.”

“Our charge wasn’t to consider other jurisdictions,” responded PUC policy analyst Kevin Fink. “It was to gather information and expertise and make our own determinations.”

 The second issue has to do with planning a new project. A turbine proposal must, on paper, meet state noise limits before it can be permitted. But some LCAR members pointed out that the PUC’s rules wouldn’t allow the developer to incorporate modern noise-reduction technology in a turbine’s design. That would make it harder for a project to pass muster.

Finally, the PUC had proposed noise limits and a setback requirement — that the distance between a turbine and any occupied structure be at least 10 times the height of the turbine. Large-scale turbines are 500 feet high, so they would have to be sited almost a mile from any building.

Representatives of the PUC told the committee, just as they had in June, that they were willing to scuttle the setback rule. This mollified LCAR skeptics, but didn’t convince them. They seem determined to wring concessions on the other two points before approving the rules, and left the door open for further questions and objections at the committee’s next meeting, scheduled for October 26.

Benning argued for limited action by LCAR. “The courts give great deference to the body proposing a rule,” he noted. “We are not a committee of expertise. There has been a wealth of evidence presented to the commission.”

He argued that LCAR was overstepping its bounds by trying to make policy instead of considering rules on procedural grounds. And he added with a touch of exasperation, “This horse has been beaten to death by this commission and this committee.”

“Our business is beating dead horses,” MacDonald replied forcefully. “That’s what we do. We do not set policy here."

LCAR member Sen. Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden) argued that it was the PUC that was overstepping its bounds, by setting rules that would ban large-scale wind. She said that policy question is for the legislature to decide.

“That’s the elephant in the room,” said PUC member Margaret Cheney. “The perception is that this rule would effectively ban wind. If we thought that the rule was an effective moratorium, we wouldn’t have offered it.”

Her words were carefully chosen. Lyons didn't claim that the rule would prohibit all wind — just large-scale turbines.

The PUC has two weeks to change minds on LCAR. Lyons was “dubious” that it can do so. “It looks like the rules are extremely conservative and extreme,” she said. But she expressed a hint of optimism due to the commission’s willingness to drop the setback requirement and provide more information on other points.

If LCAR formally objects to an administrative rule, the agency can still adopt it. But the objection would be powerful evidence against the rule in any subsequent court action. Given the clear dissatisfaction expressed by advocates on both sides of ridgeline wind, a lawsuit appears likely from one side, the other or both.