A customer didn’t understand why their Win32 accelerator key for Ctrl+M was triggering spuriously. Specifically, it was triggering when the user hit the Enter key, which is nothing like the Ctrl+M two-key combination.

They defined their accelerator table like this:

IDA_MAIN ACCELERATORS
BEGIN
"^M", IDM_MUMBLE
END

Accelerator key definitions can be done by character or by virtual key code. If you use a quoted string, then you are defining a character accelerator which triggers when that character is entered by whatever means. For example, if you define a character accelerator for "0", it will trigger if the user presses the 0 key on the top row of the keyboard, or if they press the Numpad0 key on the numeric keypad, or even if they type Alt+Numpad4,Numpad8 to type the character by entering its character code on the numeric keypad.

In the above case, the accelerator was defined as the character ^M, which is shorthand for Ctrl+M, or character code 13. There are multiple ways to enter that character code. You could type Ctrl+M on the keyboard, or you could press the Enter key.

If you want the accelerator to trigger only for the case of Ctrl+M, then you want to define a virtual key accelerator, not a character accelerator.

IDA_MAIN ACCELERATORS
BEGIN
"M", IDM_MUMBLE, CONTROL, VIRTKEY
END

Virtual key accelerators trigger only when the specified keys are pressed. In our case, we want the M virtual key in combination with the CTRL key.

Conversely, if you want the accelerator to trigger only for the Enter key, you would specify that key as a virtual key.

IDA_MAIN ACCELERATORS
BEGIN
VK_RETURN, IDM_MUMBLE, VIRTKEY
END

There are two more key-to-control-character combinations that you may stumble across.

• Backspace becomes the character ^H.
• Tab becomes the character ^I.

Technically, there is a third combination:

• Esc becomes the character ^[.

However, the Resource Compiler does not accept "^[" as a control key, so you aren’t going to run into that one by mistake.

The post Why does my <KBD>Ctrl</KBD>+<KBD>M</KBD> accelerator key activate when I press the <KBD>Enter</KBD> key? appeared first on The Old New Thing.

Hallmark has released more than 300 Christmas-themed TV movies since 2000, and a detailed internal rulebook obtained by film data analyst Stephen Follows explains how the company manages to produce nearly one new holiday film per week during the final quarter of each year without the whole operation collapsing into creative chaos. The document, referred to as Hallmark's "bible" by writers and producers who have worked on these films, specifies everything from script length (105-110 pages across a rigid nine-act structure) to prohibited activities (no bowling, no karaoke). Christmas movies must include snow or its remnants and feature characters engaged in seasonal activities like baking cookies, ice skating, and drinking hot chocolate. The target demographic is women aged 25-54, and the content must be watchable by an 80-year-old grandmother and a 5-year-old niece simultaneously. The economics differ sharply from theatrical filmmaking. Licensed titles from outside production companies carry budgets around $500,000 or less, while Hallmark's in-house productions can exceed $2 million. About three-quarters of the library comes from external producers. The formula appears to work. Hallmark TV movies have averaged a 6.3 IMDb user score over the past 14 years, compared to 5.9 for feature films worldwide. Further reading: Using Data To Determine if 'Die Hard' is a Christmas Movie.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Trump administration has pursued a staggering range of policy pivots this past year that threaten to weaken the nation’s ability and willingness to address a broad spectrum of technology challenges, from cybersecurity and privacy to countering disinformation, fraud and corruption. These shifts, along with the president’s efforts to restrict free speech and freedom of the press, have come at such a rapid clip that many readers probably aren’t even aware of them all.

FREE SPEECH

President Trump has repeatedly claimed that a primary reason he lost the 2020 election was that social media and Big Tech companies had conspired to silence conservative voices and stifle free speech. Naturally, the president’s impulse in his second term has been to use the levers of the federal government in an effort to limit the speech of everyday Americans, as well as foreigners wishing to visit the United States.

In September, Donald Trump signed a national security directive known as NSPM-7, which directs federal law enforcement officers and intelligence analysts to target “anti-American” activity, including any “tax crimes” involving extremist groups who defrauded the IRS. According to extensive reporting by journalist Ken Klippenstein, the focus of the order is on those expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity.”

Earlier this month, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo advising the FBI to compile a list of Americans whose activities “may constitute domestic terrorism.” Bondi also ordered the FBI to establish a “cash reward system” to encourage the public to report suspected domestic terrorist activity. The memo states that domestic terrorism could include “opposition to law and immigration enforcement” or support for “radical gender ideology.”

The Trump administration also is planning to impose social media restrictions on tourists as the president continues to ramp up travel restrictions for foreign visitors. According to a notice from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), tourists — including those from Britain, Australia, France, and Japan — will soon be required to provide five years of their social media history.

The CBP said it will also collect “several high value data fields,” including applicants’ email addresses from the past 10 years, their telephone numbers used in the past five years, and names and details of family members. Wired reported in October that the US CBP executed more device searches at the border in the first three months of the year than any other previous quarter.

The new requirements from CBP add meat to the bones of Executive Order 14161, which in the name of combating “foreign terrorist and public safety threats” granted broad new authority that civil rights groups warn could enable a renewed travel ban and expanded visa denials or deportations based on perceived ideology. Critics alleged the order’s vague language around “public safety threats,” creates latitude for targeting individuals based on political views, national origin, or religion. At least 35 nations are now under some form of U.S. travel restrictions.

CRIME AND CORRUPTION

In February, Trump ordered executive branch agencies to stop enforcing the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which froze foreign bribery investigations, and even allows for “remedial actions” of past enforcement actions deemed “inappropriate.”

The White House also disbanded the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative and KleptoCapture Task Force — units which proved their value in corruption cases and in seizing the assets of sanctioned Russian oligarchs — and diverted resources away from investigating white-collar crime.

Also in February, Attorney General Pam Bondi dissolved the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, an entity created during Trump’s first term designed to counter the influence of foreign governments on American politics.

In March 2025, Reuters reported that several U.S. national security agencies had halted work on a coordinated effort to counter Russian sabotage, disinformation and cyberattacks. Former President Joe Biden had ordered his national security team to establish working groups to monitor the issue amid warnings from U.S. intelligence that Russia was escalating a shadow war against Western nations.

In a test of prosecutorial independence, Trump’s Justice Department ordered prosecutors to drop the corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. The fallout was immediate: Multiple senior officials resigned in protest, the case was reassigned, and chaos engulfed the Southern District of New York (SDNY) – historically one of the nation’s most aggressive offices for pursuing public corruption, white-collar crime, and cybercrime cases.

When it comes to cryptocurrency, the administration has shifted regulators at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) away from enforcement to cheerleading an industry that has consistently been plagued by scams, fraud and rug-pulls. The SEC in 2025 systematically retreated from enforcement against cryptocurrency operators, dropping major cases against Coinbase, Binance, and others.

Perhaps the most troubling example involves Justin Sun, the Chinese-born founder of crypto currency company Tron. In 2023, the SEC charged Sun with fraud and market manipulation. Sun subsequently invested $75 million in the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial (WLF) tokens, became the top holder of the $TRUMP memecoin, and secured a seat at an exclusive dinner with the president.

In late February 2025, the SEC dropped its lawsuit. Sun promptly took Tron public through a reverse merger arranged by Dominari Securities, a firm with Trump family ties. Democratic lawmakers have urged the SEC to investigate what they call “concerning ties to President Trump and his family” as potential conflicts of interest and foreign influence.

In October, President Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the founder of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Binance. In 2023, Zhao and his company pled guilty to failing to prevent money laundering on the platform. Binance paid a $4 billion fine, and Zhao served a four-month sentence. As CBS News observed last month, shortly after Zhao’s pardon application, he was at the center of a blockbuster deal that put the Trump’s family’s WLF on the map.

“Zhao is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf and in May, an Emirati fund put $2 billion in Zhao’s Binance,” 60 Minutes reported. “Of all the currencies in the world, the deal was done in World Liberty crypto.”

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has made the agency’s new posture towards crypto explicit, stating “most crypto tokens are not securities.” At the same time, President Trump has directed the Department of Labor and the SEC to expand 401(k) access to private equity and crypto — assets that regulators have historically restricted for retail investors due to high risk, fees, opacity, and illiquidity. The executive order explicitly prioritizes “curbing ERISA litigation,” and reducing accountability for fiduciaries while shifting risk onto ordinary workers’ retirement savings.

At the White House’s behest, the U.S. Treasury in March suspended the Corporate Transparency Act, a law that required companies to reveal their real owners. Finance experts warned the suspension would bring back shell companies and “open the flood gates of dirty money” through the US, such as funds from drug gangs, human traffickers, and fraud groups.

Trump’s clemency decisions have created a pattern of freed criminals committing new offenses, including Jonathan Braun, whose sentence for drug trafficking was commuted during Trump’s first term, was found guilty in 2025 of violating supervised release and faces new charges.

Eliyahu Weinstein, who received a commutation in January 2021 for running a Ponzi scheme, was sentenced in November 2025 to 37 years for running a new Ponzi scheme. The administration has also granted clemency to a growing list of white-collar criminals: David Gentile, a private equity executive sentenced to seven years for securities and wire fraud (functionally a ponzi-like scheme), and Trevor Milton, the Nikola founder sentenced to four years for defrauding investors over electric vehicle technology. The message: Financial crimes against ordinary investors are no big deal.

At least 10 of the January 6 insurrectionists pardoned by President Trump have already been rearrested, charged or sentenced for other crimes, including plotting the murder of FBI agents, child sexual assault, possession of child sexual abuse material and reckless homicide while driving drunk.

The administration also imposed sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC). On February 6, 2025, Executive Order 14203 authorized asset freezes and visa restrictions against ICC officials investigating U.S. citizens or allies, primarily in response to the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Earlier this month the president launched the “Gold Card,” a visa scheme established by an executive order in September that offers wealthy individuals and corporations expedited paths to U.S. residency and citizenship in exchange for $1 million for individuals and $2 million for companies, plus ongoing fees. The administration says it is also planning to offer a “platinum” version of the card that offers special tax breaks — for a cool $5 million.

FEDERAL CYBERSECURITY

President Trump campaigned for a second term insisting that the previous election was riddled with fraud and had been stolen from him. Shortly after Mr. Trump took the oath of office for a second time, he fired the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) — Chris Krebs (no relation) — for having the audacity to state publicly that the 2020 election was the most secure in U.S. history.

Mr. Trump revoked Krebs’s security clearances, ordered a Justice Department investigation into his election security work, and suspended the security clearances of employees at SentinelOne, the cybersecurity firm where Krebs worked as chief intelligence and public policy officer. The executive order was the first direct presidential action against any US cybersecurity company. Krebs subsequently resigned from SentinelOne, telling The Wall Street Journal he was leaving to push back on Trump’s efforts “to go after corporate interests and corporate relationships.”

The president also dismissed all 15 members of the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB), a nonpartisan government entity established in 2022 with a mandate to investigate the security failures behind major cybersecurity events — likely because those advisors included Chris Krebs.

At the time, the CSRB was in the middle of compiling a much-anticipated report on the root causes of Chinese government-backed digital intrusions into at least nine U.S. telecommunications providers. Not to be outdone, the Federal Communication Commission quickly moved to roll back a previous ruling that required U.S. telecom carriers to implement stricter cybersecurity measures.

Meanwhile, CISA has lost roughly a third of its workforce this year amid mass layoffs and deferred resignations. When the government shutdown began in October, CISA laid off even more employees and furloughed 65 percent of the remaining staff, leaving only 900 employees working without pay.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security has reassigned CISA cyber specialists to jobs supporting the president’s deportation agenda. As Bloomberg reported earlier this year, CISA employees were given a week to accept the new roles or resign, and some of the reassignments included relocations to new geographic areas.

The White House has signaled that it plans to cut an additional $491 million from CISA’s budget next year, cuts that primarily target CISA programs focused on international affairs and countering misinformation and foreign propaganda. The president’s budget proposal justified the cuts by repeating debunked claims about CISA engaging in censorship.

The Trump administration has pursued a similar reorganization at the FBI: The Washington Post reported in October that a quarter of all FBI agents have now been reassigned from national security threats to immigration enforcement. Reuters reported last week that the replacement of seasoned leaders at the FBI and Justice Department with Trump loyalists has led to an unprecedented number of prosecutorial missteps, resulting in a 21 percent dismissal rate of the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office criminal complaints over eight weeks, compared to a mere .5% dismissal rate over the prior 10 years.

“These mistakes are causing department attorneys to lose credibility with federal courts, with some judges quashing subpoenas, threatening criminal contempt and issuing opinions that raise questions about their conduct,” Reuters reported. “Grand juries have also in some cases started rejecting indictments, a highly unusual event since prosecutors control what evidence gets presented.”

In August, the DHS banned state and local governments from using cyber grants on services provided by the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), a group that for more than 20 years has shared critical cybersecurity intelligence across state lines and provided software and other resources at free or heavily discounted rates. Specifically, DHS barred states from spending funds on services offered by the Elections Infrastructure ISAC, which was effectively shuttered after DHS pulled its funding in February.

Cybersecurity Dive reports that the Trump administration’s massive workforce cuts, along with widespread mission uncertainty and a persistent leadership void, have interrupted federal agencies’ efforts to collaborate with the businesses and local utilities that run and protect healthcare facilities, water treatment plans, energy companies and telecommunications networks. The publication said the changes came after the US government eliminated CIPAC — a framework that allowed private companies to share cyber and threat intel without legal penalties.

“Government leaders have canceled meetings with infrastructure operators, forced out their longtime points of contact, stopped attending key industry events and scrapped a coordination program that made companies feel comfortable holding sensitive talks about cyberattacks and other threats with federal agencies,” Cybersecurity Dive’s Eric Geller wrote.

Both the National Security Agency (NSA) and U.S. Cyber Command have been without a leader since Trump dismissed Air Force General Timothy Haugh in April, allegedly for disloyalty to the president and at the suggestion of far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer. The nomination of Army Lt. Gen. William Hartman for the same position fell through in October. The White House has ordered the NSA to cut 8 percent of its civilian workforce (between 1,500 and 2,000 employees).

As The Associated Press reported in August, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence plans to dramatically reduce its workforce and cut its budget by more than $700 million annually. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the cuts were warranted because ODNI had become “bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence.”

The firing or forced retirements of so many federal employees has been a boon to foreign intelligence agencies. Chinese intelligence agencies, for example, reportedly moved quickly to take advantage of the mass layoffs, using a network of front companies to recruit laid-off U.S. government employees for “consulting work.” Former workers with the Defense Department’s Defense Digital Service who resigned en-masse earlier this year thanks to DOGE encroaching on their mission have been approached by the United Arab Emirates to work on artificial intelligence for the oil kingdom’s armed forces, albeit reportedly with the blessing of the Trump administration.

PRESS FREEDOM

President Trump has filed multibillion-dollar lawsuits against a number of major news outlets over news segments or interviews that allegedly portrayed him in a negative light, suing the networks ABC, the BBC, the CBS parent company Paramount, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, among others.

The president signed an executive order aimed at slashing public subsidies to PBS and NPR, alleging “bias” in the broadcasters’ reporting. In July, Congress approved a request from Trump to cut $1.1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the nonprofit entity that funds PBS and NPR.

Brendan Carr, the president’s pick to run the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), initially pledged to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans.” But on January 22, 2025, the FCC reopened complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC over their coverage of the 2024 election. The previous FCC chair had dismissed the complaints as attacks on the First Amendment and an attempt to weaponize the agency for political purposes.

President Trump in February seized control of the White House Correspondents’ Association, the nonprofit entity that decides which media outlets should have access to the White House and the press pool that follows the president. The president invited an additional 32 media outlets, mostly conservative or right-wing organizations.

According to the journalism group Poynter.org, there are three religious networks, all of which lean conservative, as well as a mix of outlets that includes a legacy paper, television networks, and a digital outlet powered by artificial intelligence.  Trump also barred The Associated Press from the White House over their refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

Under Trump appointee Kari Lake, the U.S. Agency for Global Media moved to dismantle Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and other networks that for decades served as credible news sources behind authoritarian lines. Courts blocked shutdown orders, but the damage continues through administrative leave, contract terminations, and funding disputes.

President Trump this term has fired most of the people involved in processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for government agencies. FOIA is an indispensable tool used by journalists and the public to request government records, and to hold leaders accountable.

Petitioning the government, particularly when it ignores your requests, often requires challenging federal agencies in court. But that becomes far more difficult if the most competent law firms start to shy away from cases that may involve crossing the president and his administration. On March 22, the president issued a memorandum that directs heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States,” or in matters that come before federal agencies.

The Trump administration announced increased vetting of applicants for H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, with an internal State Department memo saying that anyone involved in “censorship” of free speech should be considered for rejection.

Executive Order 14161, issued in 2025 on “foreign terrorist and public safety threats,” granted broad new authority that civil rights groups warn could enable a renewed travel ban and expanded visa denials or deportations based on perceived ideology. Critics charged that the order’s vague language around “public safety threats” creates latitude for targeting individuals based on political views, national origin, or religion.

CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRIVACY

At the beginning of this year, President Trump ordered staffers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to stop most work. Created by Congress in 2011 to be a clearinghouse of consumer complaints, the CFPB has sued some of the nation’s largest financial institutions for violating consumer protection laws. The CFPB says its actions have put nearly $18 billion back in Americans’ pockets in the form of monetary compensation or canceled debts, and imposed $4 billion in civil money penalties against violators.

The Trump administration said it planned to fire up to 90 percent of all CFPB staff, but a recent federal appeals court ruling in Washington tossed out an earlier decision that would have allowed the firings to proceed. Reuters reported this week that an employee union and others have battled against it in court for ten months, during which the agency has been almost completely idled.

The CFPB’s acting director is Russell Vought, a key architect of the GOP policy framework Project 2025. Under Vought’s direction, the CFPB in May quietly withdrew a data broker protection rule intended to limit the ability of U.S. data brokers to sell personal information on Americans.

Despite the Federal Reserve’s own post-mortem explicitly blaming Trump-era deregulation for the 2023 Silicon Valley Bank collapse, which triggered a fast-moving crisis requiring emergency weekend bailouts of banks, Trump’s banking regulators in 2025 doubled down. They loosened capital requirements, narrowed definitions of “unsafe” banking practices, and stripped specific risk categories from supervisory frameworks. The setup for another banking crisis requiring taxpayer intervention is now in place.

The Privacy Act of 1974, one of the few meaningful federal privacy laws, was built on the principles of consent and separation in response to the abuses of power that came to light during the Watergate era. The law states that when an individual provides personal information to a federal agency to receive a particular service, that data must be used solely for its original purpose.

Nevertheless, it emerged in June that the Trump administration has built a central database of all US citizens. According to NPR, the White House plans to use the new platform during upcoming elections to verify the identity and citizenship status of US voters. The database was built by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Governmental Efficiency and is being rolled out in phases to US states.

DOGE

Probably the biggest ungotten scoop of 2025 is the inside story of what happened to all of the personal, financial and other sensitive data that was accessed by workers at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). President Trump tapped Elon Musk to lead the newly created department, which was mostly populated by current and former employees of Musk’s various technology companies (including a former denizen of the cybercrime community known as the “Com”). It soon emerged that the DOGE team was using artificial intelligence to surveil at least one federal agency’s communications for hostility to Mr. Trump and his agenda.

DOGE employees were able to access and synthesize data taken from a large number of previously separate and highly guarded federal databases, including those at the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. DOGE staffers did so largely by circumventing or dismantling security measures designed to detect and prevent misuse of federal databases, including standard incident response protocols, auditing, and change-tracking mechanisms.

For example, an IT expert with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleges that DOGE employees likely downloaded gigabytes of data from agency case files in early March, using short-lived accounts that were configured to leave few traces of network activity. The NLRB whistleblower said the large data outflows coincided with multiple blocked login attempts from addresses in Russia, which attempted to use valid credentials for a newly-created DOGE user account.

The stated goal of DOGE was to reduce bureaucracy and to massively cut costs — mainly by eliminating funding for a raft of federal initiatives that had already been approved by Congress. The DOGE website claimed those efforts reduced “wasteful” and “fraudulent” federal spending by more than $200 billion. However, multiple independent reviews by news organizations determined the true “savings” DOGE achieved was off by a couple of orders of magnitude, and was likely closer to $2 billion.

At the same time DOGE was slashing federal programs, President Trump fired at least 17 inspectors general at federal agencies — the very people tasked with actually identifying and stopping waste, fraud and abuse at the federal level. Those included several agencies (such as the NLRB) that had open investigations into one or more of Mr. Musk’s companies for allegedly failing to comply with protocols aimed at protecting state secrets. In September, a federal judge found the president unlawfully fired the agency watchdogs, but none of them have been reinstated.

Where is DOGE now? Reuters reported last month that as far as the White House is concerned, DOGE no longer exists, even though it technically has more than half a year left to its charter. Meanwhile, who exactly retains access to federal agency data that was fed by DOGE into AI tools is anyone’s guess.

KrebsOnSecurity would like to thank the anonymous researcher NatInfoSec for assisting with the research on this story.

The House of Representatives cleared the way for a massive overhaul of the federal environmental review process last Thursday, despite last-minute changes that led clean energy groups and moderate Democrats to pull their support.

The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act, or SPEED Act, overcame opposition from environmentalists and many Democrats who oppose the bill’s sweeping changes to a bedrock environmental law.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and backed by Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), passed the House Thursday in a 221-196 vote, in which 11 Democrats joined Republican lawmakers to back the reform effort. It now heads to the Senate, where it has critics and proponents on both sides of the aisle, making its prospects uncertain.

The bill seeks to reform foundational environmental regulations that govern how major government projects are assessed and approved by amending the landmark 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law under the Nixon administration. NEPA requires federal agencies to review and disclose the environmental impacts of major projects before permitting or funding them. Although NEPA reviews are only one component of the federal permitting process, advocates argue that they serve a crucial role by providing both the government and the public the chance to examine the knock-on effects that major projects could have on the environment.

Critics of the law have argued for years that increasingly complex reviews—along with legal wrangling over the findings of those reviews—have turned NEPA into a source of significant, burdensome delays that threaten the feasibility of major projects, such as power plants, transmission lines, and wind and solar projects on federal land.

Speaking on the floor of the House Thursday before the vote, Westerman described the SPEED Act as a way to “restore common sense and accountability to federal permitting.” Westerman praised the original intent of NEPA but said the law’s intended environmental protections had been overshadowed by NEPA becoming “more synonymous with red tape and waste.

“What was meant to facilitate responsible development has been twisted into a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays investments in the infrastructure and technologies that make our country run,” Westerman said.

After the bill’s passage through the House on Thursday, the SPEED Act’s Democratic cosponsor, Golden, praised the bill’s success.

“The simplest way to make energy, housing, and other essentials more affordable is to make it possible to actually produce enough of it at a reasonable cost,” Golden said in a press release following the vote. “The SPEED Act has united workers, businesses, and political forces who usually oppose each other because scarcity hurts everyone.”

According to an issue brief from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the bill aims to reform the NEPA process in several key ways. First, it makes changes to the ways agencies comply with NEPA—for example, by creating exemptions to when a NEPA review is required, and requiring agencies to only consider environmental impacts that are directly tied to the project at hand.

It would also drastically shorten the deadline to sue a federal agency over its permitting decision and constrain who is eligible to file suit. Current law provides a six-year statute of limitations on agency decisions for permitting energy infrastructure, and two years for transportation project permits. Under the SPEED Act’s provisions, those deadlines would be shortened to a mere 150 days and only allow lawsuits to be filed by plaintiffs who demonstrated in public comment periods that they would be directly and negatively impacted by the project.

NEPA does not require the government to make particular decisions about whether or how to move forward with a project based on a review’s findings. However, critics argue that in the decades since its passage, interest groups have “weaponized” the NEPA process to delay or even doom projects they oppose, sometimes forcing agencies to conduct additional analyses that add costly delays to project timelines.

Strange bedfellows on either side of the bill 

Although climate activists and environmental groups have used NEPA to oppose fossil fuel projects, such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, oil and gas interests are far from the only group seeking respite. Some voices within the clean energy industry have called for permitting reform, too, arguing that delays stemming from the current permitting process have had a negative impact on America’s ability to build out more climate-friendly projects, including some offshore wind projects and transmission lines to connect renewables to the grid.

So when Westerman and Golden introduced the SPEED Act in the House, a hodgepodge of odd alliances and opposition groups formed in response.

The American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for the oil and gas industry, launched a seven-figure advertising campaign in recent months pushing lawmakers to pursue permitting reform, according to a report from Axios. And the bill also initially enjoyed support from voices within the clean power industry. However, last-minute changes to the bill—designed to win over Republican holdouts—undermined the SPEED Act’s cross-sector support.

The bill’s opponents had previously raised alarm bells that fossil fuel interests would disproportionately benefit from a more streamlined review process under the current administration, citing President Donald Trump’s ongoing war against wind and solar energy projects.

In recent months, the Trump administration has sought to pause, reconsider, or revoke already approved permits for renewable energy projects it dislikes. Those moves particularly impacted offshore wind developments and added significant uncertainty to the feasibility of clean energy investments as a whole.

A bipartisan amendment to the SPEED Act, added during the Natural Resources Committee’s markup in November, sought to address some of those concerns by adding language that would make it more difficult for the administration to “revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, alter, or take any other action to interfere” with an existing authorization.

However, that measure encountered resistance from key Republican voices who support Trump’s attacks on offshore wind projects.

A last-minute loophole for Trump’s energy agenda

On Tuesday, Republican lawmakers in the Rules Committee were able to amend the SPEED Act in a way that would facilitate the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to axe renewable energy projects. The changes were spearheaded by Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), two vocal proponents of Trump’s energy policies. The amendment fundamentally undermined the technology-neutral aspirations of the bill—and any hope of receiving widespread support from moderate Democrats or the clean power industry.

According to Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy at the League of Conservation Voters, Harris and Van Drew’s amendment would allow the administration to exclude any project from the bill’s reforms that the Trump administration had flagged for reconsideration—something the administration has done repeatedly for renewable projects like offshore wind.

The result, Davis argued, is that the bill would speed up the environmental review process for the Trump administration’s preferred sources of energy—namely, oil and gas—while leaving clean energy projects languishing.

“They couldn’t pass the rule on Tuesday to even consider this bill without making it even better for the fossil fuel industry and even worse for the clean energy industry,” Davis said.

In a public statement following Thursday’s vote, Davis described the amended SPEED Act as “a fossil fuel giveaway that cuts out community input and puts our health and safety at risk to help big polluters.”

The American Clean Power Association, which represents the renewable energy industry, previously hailed the bill as an important step forward for the future of clean energy development. But after the Rules Committee’s changes on Tuesday, the organization dropped its support.

“Our support for permitting reform has always rested on one principle: fixing a broken system for all energy resources,” said ACP CEO Jason Grumet in a Wednesday statement. “The amendment adopted last night violate[s] that principle. Technology neutrality wasn’t just good policy—it was the political foundation that made reform achievable.”

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), a nonprofit trade and advocacy organization, echoed that sentiment.

“Durable, bipartisan, technology-neutral permitting reforms that support and advance the full suite of American electricity resources and the necessary expansion of transmission infrastructure to get that electricity from where it’s generated to where it’s needed are essential to meeting that challenge reliably, securely, and most importantly, affordably,” said ACORE CEO Ray Long. “Unfortunately, the changes made on the House floor are a disappointing step backward from achieving these objectives.”

Following the SPEED Act’s passage through the House on Thursday, advocacy group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) issued a public statement praising the bill’s success while noting how the recent amendments had affected the law.

“While we are concerned that post committee additions to the bill could put the certainty of a range of projects at risk, this bill’s underlying reforms are critical to advancing American energy,” CRES President Heather Reams said in the statement.

Mixed expectations for the reform’s impact

Even before the move to strip protections for renewables from the bill, some critics—like Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.)—said that the legislation didn’t go far enough to curtail the president’s “all-out assault” against clean power, arguing that the bill does nothing to restore approvals that have already been canceled by the administration and doesn’t address other roadblocks that have been put in place.

“The administration cannot be trusted to act without specific language, in my view, to protect the clean energy projects already in the pipeline and to prevent the Interior Secretary from unilaterally stopping projects that are needed to lower costs and improve grid reliability,” Levin told Inside Climate News in an interview ahead of the House vote.

Both Levin and Davis pointed to a July memo from the Department of Interior that requires all wind and solar projects on federal land to receive higher-level approval from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

“The administration is not even returning the phone calls of project developers. They are not responding to applications being submitted,” Davis said. “That sort of approach is in stark contrast with the ‘white glove, concierge service’—and that’s a quote from the Trump administration—the service they are providing for fossil fuel companies to access our public lands.”

The SPEED Act’s opponents also dispute the idea that NEPA reviews are one of the primary causes of permitting delays, arguing that reports from the Congressional Research Service and other groups have found little evidence to support those claims.

“Often missing in the conversation around NEPA is the empirical research that’s been done, and there’s a lot of that out there,” said Jarryd Page, a staff attorney at the Environmental Law Institute, in a September interview with Inside Climate News.

That research points to resource constraints as one of the biggest roadblocks, Page said, like not having enough staff to conduct the environmental reviews, or staff lacking adequate experience and technical know-how.

Debate over NEPA and the reform of the permitting process will now move into the Senate, where experts say the SPEED Act will likely undergo further changes.

“I think as the bill goes forwards in the Senate, we’ll probably see a neutral, across-the-board approach to making sure the process is fair for all technology types,” Xan Fishman, an energy policy expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center told ICN after Thursday’s vote.

Fishman stressed it would be crucial to ensure permits for projects wouldn’t suddenly be cancelled for political reasons, but said he was optimistic about how the SPEED Act would be refined in the Senate.

“It’s great to see Congress so engaged with permitting reform,” he said. “Both sides of the aisle see a need to do better.”

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Read full article

Comments

A colleague of mine who used to work in product support told me that they had a procedure if a customer became irate and demanded to speak with Bill Gates. (This was, of course, back in the days when Bill Gates still ran the company.)

The product support technician would apologize for not resolving the problem to the customer’s satisfaction, but if the customer continued to demand to speak with The Boss, the technician would indeed transfer the customer.

The customer was transferred to a special internal phone number, and when the operators saw a call on that line, they took the call and said, “Bill Gates’s office.” They weren’t actually in Bill Gates’s office. They were just pretending to be Bill Gates’s secretary. Their job was to tell the caller that Mr. Gates is currently unavailable, but if the customer leaves a message and their contact information, they will pass the information to Mr. Gates.

Of course, the information was never actually passed along to Bill. The information went back into the product support channel with a note that the customer was escalated to “Bill Gates’s office.” The technician who returned the call would probably say something like “Bill Gates asked me to contact you to follow up on an issue you had earlier.”

The post When irate product support customers demand to speak to Bill Gates appeared first on The Old New Thing.

On Monday, the US Department of the Interior announced that it was pausing the leases on all five offshore wind sites currently under construction in the US. The move comes despite the fact that these projects already have installed significant hardware in the water and on land; one of them is nearly complete. In what appears to be an attempt to avoid legal scrutiny, the Interior is blaming the decisions on a classified report from the Department of Defense.

The second Trump administration announced its animosity toward offshore wind power literally on day one, issuing an executive order on inauguration day that called for a temporary halt to issuing permits for new projects pending a re-evaluation. Earlier this month, however, a judge vacated that executive order, noting that the government has shown no indication that it was even attempting to start the re-evaluation it said was needed.

But a number of projects have gone through the entire permitting process, and construction has started. Before today, the administration had attempted to stop these in an erratic, halting manner. Empire Wind, an 800 MW farm being built off New York, was stopped by the Department of the Interior, which alleged that it had been rushed through permitting. That hold was lifted following lobbying and negotiations by New York and the project developer Orsted, and the Department of the Interior never revealed why it changed its mind. When the Interior Department blocked a second Orsted project, Revolution Wind offshore of southern New England, the company took the government to court and won a ruling that let it continue construction.

Today's announcement targets those and three other projects. Interior says it is pausing the permits for all five, which are the only projects currently under construction. It claims that offshore wind creates "national security risks" that were revealed in a recent analysis performed by the Department of Defense, which apparently neglected to identify these issues during the evaluations it did while the projects were first permitted.

Unspecified risks

What are these risks? The Interior Department is being extremely coy. It notes that offshore wind turbines can interfere with radar sensing, but that's been known for a while. In announcing the decision, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also noted "the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies." But the announcement says that the Defense Department analysis is classified, meaning nobody is likely to know what the actual reason is—presuming one exists. The classification will also make it far more challenging to contest this decision in court.

The five blocked projects  are:

• Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind: A massive 2.6 GW installation off the coast of Virginia. According to the project's updates, construction of the land-based facilities and the in-water base for the towers is complete, and assembly of the turbines and towers on land has started.
• Empire Wind: A site off the New York/New Jersey coast will play host to an 810 MW project. This one is early in the construction phase, with work focusing on prepping the sites where turbines will be installed. This had been subjected to an earlier hold.
• Revolution Wind: Another early victim of the Department of Interior's capricious early attempts, Revolution was 80 percent complete when work restarted following Orsted's court victory. It will host 700 MW of generating capacity in the waters off Connecticut and Rhode Island.
• Sunrise Wind: 925 MW is planned for a site beyond the tip of Long Island. Recent construction updates suggest that work is primarily focused on the facilities where power will be brought ashore.
• Vineyard Wind 1: This is an 800 MW project being built just south of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. This project was expected to be completed by the end of this year, so it may be substantially done.

Many of the affected states were counting on the power that these facilities would deliver, and will likely oppose this move. “This appears to be a second, even more lawless and erratic stop work order, reviving the Trump Administration’s prior failed attempt to halt construction of Revolution Wind," said William Tong, the Attorney General of Connecticut. "There is a court order blocking their prior stop work order and this appears to be a new brazen attempt to circumvent that order." He indicated his office is currently evaluating its legal options.

The states are likely to be joined by the companies backing these projects, which, in several cases, have already spent nearly all the money needed for their construction and will be eager to start earning that back by selling power from the facilities.

In both court cases in which the administration attempted to block wind power development, the government lost badly. The records in the case indicate that it has had no substantive reasons for reversing decades-old policies and overruling past decisions, and that internally, the decision-making process appears to consist entirely of noting that the president doesn't like wind power. It's unclear whether this classified evaluation differs significantly from earlier efforts in any way other than that it will be harder to find out.

Read full article

Comments