A proposed overhaul of federal Head Start regulations could significantly change how transportation services are governed, and attendees at the Transporting Students with Disabilities & Special Needs (TSD) Conference this November will have an opportunity to examine what the changes could mean for daily operations.

A special conversation scheduled for Saturday, Nov. 7, will focus on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs. The session will provide attendees with an update on the status of the rulemaking as of the conference and bring the discussion directly to transportation professionals who serve Head Start children and families.

The Administration for Children and Families published the NPRM Aug. 7 and set an Oct. 6 deadline for public comments. It proposes to rescind and replace the Head Start Program Performance Standards most recently revised in 2024, including those for transportation. ACF said the changes are intended to reduce federal regulatory burden, eliminate requirements it considers duplicative of state and local rules, and return greater decision-making authority to Head Start agencies and families.

The NPRM proposes removing the detailed federal transportation requirements contained in 45 CFR 1303.70 through 1303.75. Those provisions currently address vehicle selection and operation, routing, safety procedures and transportation of children with disabilities. Under the proposal, Head Start programs would instead continue to follow applicable state and local licensing and transportation requirements, along with remaining federal statutory obligations.

One of the most closely watched provisions is the existing federal requirement for a bus monitor aboard vehicles transporting Head Start children. ACF proposes eliminating that mandate and allowing programs greater flexibility to determine transportation staffing based on local operations, safety practices and state or local regulations. The agency’s regulatory analysis states some programs could reduce staffing costs, while also acknowledging that programs may continue using monitors because of state or local requirements or their own safety practices.

That distinction is expected to be central to the TSD Conference conversation.

Rather than simply reviewing regulatory language, the Nov. 7 session will examine the operational questions the proposal raises for the people responsible for transporting young children. Among them: Would programs continue using monitors even if they are no longer federally required? How might requirements vary from state to state? What could changes to federal vehicle, routing and safety rules mean for training, staffing and equipment? And how could programs balance potential new flexibility with the unique transportation needs of preschool-age children and children with disabilities?

Those questions have surfaced repeatedly in interviews conducted by School Transportation News, which will report on the topic in the upcoming November edition of the magazine. Issues cited include the role monitors play in securing young children in child safety restraint systems, supervising students and assisting during loading, unloading and emergencies. Others pointed to transportation access as an especially important issue for rural families and programs already confronting driver shortages and increasing operating costs.

The discussion will also distinguish between what has been proposed and what programs are currently required to do. The NPRM itself does not change existing Head Start transportation requirements while the rulemaking process continues. The TSD Conference session will reflect whatever action, if any, HHS has taken following the close of the public-comment period.

The 2026 TSD Conference and Trade Show runs Nov. 4-10 at the Embassy Suites Dallas-Frisco Hotel & Convention Center in Frisco, Texas. The event brings together student transportation, special education, safety and industry professionals for general and breakout sessions, specialized training, hands-on activities, networking and a trade show focused on transportation for students with disabilities and special needs.

Early Bird main conference registration is $499 through Oct. 2, a savings of $100 off the $599 standard registration rate. Registration includes keynote, general and breakout educational sessions as well as the Welcome Party at Topgolf The Colony, the Ride & Drive + Technology Demonstration and the TSD Tailgate Trade Show Reception. Certain specialized training programs require separate registration and fees. Visit TSDConference.com to register and view the latest agenda.

---

Related: New Date Set for NHTSA Child Passenger Safety Training at TSD
Related: Mulick Returns to TSD Conference with Keys to Unlocking Autism
Related: Legal Keynote to Examine Court Rulings Reshaping Special Needs Transportation
Related: Special Needs Roadeo Returns to TSD Conference with Expanded Training, Team Challenges

The post Proposed Head Start Regulation Changes Could Impact Transportation appeared first on School Transportation News.

WASHINGTON — The rare 2026 issue that draws huge support from Republicans and Democrats in Congress is the same one that’s mobilized many Americans: restrictions on giant data centers.

The House has overwhelmingly passed legislation forcing state regulators to consider requirements that data centers absorb the cost of the electricity they use. 

But there’s more to be done, say data center critics, and they’re finding there is no easy or even obvious answer about what to do next.

Leave it to state and local governments to decide whether and how the centers should function? Should their size be restricted? Should they be banned altogether?

The future of data centers has become a flashpoint in this year’s congressional races. It’s woven into the debate about affordability, artificial intelligence and corporate influence on government.

“People see big energy cost increases and say data centers must be the reason,” said Daniel Birdsong, senior lecturer in political science at the University of Dayton.

Before leaving Washington for an extended recess not due to end until after the election, the House voted Wednesday 417-3 on a bill that requires states to consider having data centers using large amounts of electricity pay the full additional cost of that generation, as well as transmission and distribution upgrades that are needed.

Obstacles to action

The vote was only a prologue for action. There’s no clear next chapter, as skepticism is coming from critics at the White House and among progressives.

The biggest obstacle appears to be President Donald Trump.

“The people that say AI is going to destroy the World, and that Data Centers are bad for your neighborhood, are the same people that said, just a short time ago, that the World would be extinguished by ‘Climate Change,’” he said on his Truth Social site Monday.

“That HOAX never worked out for them, and now they’re on to the next one. These people are Revolutionaries, but Revolutionaries for a Bad and Evil Cause. Soon you’ll find out they’re working for people that do not have the best interests of the United States in mind!”

Senate leaders have not said how or if they’ll take up the House bill, or any other data center legislation.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, was not optimistic.

“There aren’t many alternatives to a president who thinks this is a wonderful asset and communities who think just the opposite,” he said.

The lawmakers know this much: Their constituents don’t like data centers. 

“I’ve never seen people come together across the political spectrum like I have the last few months on concerns about big tech, concerns around AI, concerns around data center development,” said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H.

A national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll released this week showed just 11% said they backed the construction of the data centers in their local area. Sixty-five percent were opposed, and about half said they were strongly opposed.

“Opposition to AI data centers has emerged as one of these rare areas of consensus,” said poll director Tatishe Nteta.

The political divide

Solutions tend to fall along three very general lines: A complete ban or moratorium; giving state and local governments more tools to regulate the centers; and withdrawing federal support.

Putting pressure on utility companies appears to have the most legislative traction. Rep. Rob Latta, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee, found the House-passed legislation would protect consumers from runaway center-inspired utility rates.

The bill, he said, “protects American ratepayers from being forced to cover the cost of energy infrastructure upgrades needed to support data centers.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, saw the measure as help for constituents facing affordability issues. “Data centers cannot come at a cost to neighbors who are already facing high grocery, gas, utility, health care and housing costs,” she said.

At the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned electric companies, Drew Maloney, president and CEO, said in a statement that he appreciated Congress’ work and that EEI’s members “will continue working in lockstep to ensure large customers cover the costs of the energy infrastructure they use, and communities have a strong voice from the beginning of the planning process.”  

But some environmental activists saw big flaws in the bill.

“With only a weak directive to states to voluntarily consider adopting cost protections against the energy costs of data centers for ratepayers, state regulators could ultimately choose to ignore this bill,” said Sara Chieffo, senior vice president for government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters. 

A report last year from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that in 2023, data centers used roughly 4.4% of total electricity in this country. It forecast that the figure could double or triple by 2028 to meet the needs of more data, notably from artificial intelligence.

Consumers’ costs are generally figured by how much it costs to generate and deliver electricity. State and local regulators usually set those rates.

Looking ahead 

While the House bill had strong Democratic support, many in the party wanted to go further.

“It’s a step forward,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, told reporters when asked about the House bill. “But more needs to be done.”

That could include some sort of ban, or at least a moratorium, on building more centers, an approach favored by many Democratic progressives.

“Communities should have the right to say ‘no’ to a data center being shoved down their throats,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told colleagues in a floor speech. 

In the Senate, some Democrats sent a strong signal that they wanted to do more than the House bill provided.

The bill “does nothing to meaningfully address the rising costs of AI data center development. Instead, it relies on a voluntary framework that does not require AI data centers to pay the full cost of the energy they consume or the strain they place on the grid,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

“We need legislation that makes AI data centers pay their fair share and actually protects families,” he said. 

Among this week’s efforts was new legislation from a group of House Democrats to end certain currently available federal tax incentives available to data centers.

“Tax cuts need to go to families, not data centers. We absolutely should not cut healthcare and food assistance for children and seniors to pay for tax giveaways to corporations,” said Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“Why incentivize this right now?” asked Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., another top sponsor.

Political fallout

Find a close House or Senate race and chances are good there’s a brawl between candidates over who can best deal with the data center issue.

In Ohio, Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican, is in a close battle with former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat.

Husted is the lead sponsor of the Senate ratepayer protection bill. Husted tried to get the Senate to consider the measure Thursday but it was blocked by Heinrich.

Asked why he doesn’t support a ban, Husted said, “Whether you want a data center should be a local decision. What we should do is protect the ratepayers from bearing the burden of the cost of building the electricity those data centers use.”

Husted is in a difficult position, Birdsong said, because his call for limits on data centers “puts him at odds with Trump.”

Close House races have similar fights. In Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican, is campaigning as the voice of the consumer.

One way to deal with data centers, he said, is by “stopping federal overreach and preventing the secrecy pledges that have plagued Michigan and undermined the power of local residents.”

The House, though, left Washington and won’t be back voting until a lame-duck session starting Nov. 8, sparking outrage from Democrats.

“That means ZERO votes on lowering costs, ending corruption, addressing AI, or responding to the Iran war before Election Day,” tweeted Rep. Johnny Olszewski Jr., D-Md. 

The Senate’s scheduled to be around through September, but there’s no sign it will take a close look at the data center issue. The big hope is that it will continue to be discussed back home and lawmakers will return ready to act or at least debate.

“We have to understand, ‘What’s the real implication here?’” Davis said.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week that it would not suspend the legal license of former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted earlier this year of obstructing federal agents trying to make an immigration arrest in the county courthouse. 

In an order released Wednesday, the Court overruled the request of the state Office of Lawyer Regulation to suspend her license on the grounds that she was convicted of a “serious crime.” Wisconsin’s court rules state attorneys found guilty of a serious crime can have their licenses suspended until their disciplinary proceedings are complete. 

Dugan was convicted of one felony count of endeavoring to obstruct a pending proceeding after helping an undocumented man appearing in her court briefly evade federal agents. The case drew national attention and in July she was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine. 

The Supreme Court suspended Dugan from her position as a circuit court judge in April 2025, shortly after she was arrested. 

In its Wednesday order, the Court found that “in its exercise of its discretion … a summary suspension of Attorney Dugan’s license to practice law is not warranted under the facts of the matter.” 

The two conservatives on the Court, Brian Hagedorn and Annette Ziegler, dissented from the order. 

Ziegler wrote that the standard practice of the Court has historically been to suspend attorneys convicted of crimes to expedite the investigation of the Office of Lawyer Regulation. She also questioned why the majority wouldn’t act to discipline Dugan for her actions. 

“These charges concerned then-Judge Dugan, in her capacity as a circuit court judge, wearing a judicial robe, at the courthouse, obstructing federal agents,” Ziegler wrote. “I am confounded by our court’s inaction.”

Kenosha County District Attorney Xavier Solis had his license to practice law suspended Monday. The Office of Lawyer Regulation then reinstated the license Tuesday.

A memo issued by the state court system’s Office of Lawyer Regulation states that Solis’ suspension was for “willfully failing to cooperate with one or more OLR investigations into alleged misconduct.” 

The memo also states that Solis violated a Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that states that lawyers can have their licenses suspended if they’re under investigation by the OLR and don’t comply with deadlines to provide information. 

Solis, a Republican, was elected DA of Kenosha County in 2024 and had previously worked as a private defense attorney. 

Stephen Kelley, a spokesperson for the state court system, told the Wisconsin Examiner the only information available to the public is the rule Solis is alleged to have violated. 

State law requires district attorneys to have a valid law license, so Solis cannot currently perform the job. It’s not clear what the suspension will mean for Solis’ future in the seat. Under state court rules, an attorney suspension can be lifted if the suspended lawyer discloses what happened and cooperates with the investigation to the “reasonable satisfaction” of the regulators within 18 months. 

Deputy District Attorney Rosamaria Delgado is now serving as interim DA in Solis’ office. 

“Administrative staff of the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office and I will continue to oversee the day-to-day operations of the office,” Delgado said in a statement to 620 WTMJ. “We have reached out to the State for direction. I will take over management and/or reassignment of District Attorney Solis’ caseload until such time as District Attorney Solis’ license to practice law is reinstated or, until further direction is received from the Governor’s Office.  At this time, no other information is available.”

Solis, who had no experience as a prosecutor when he was elected in 2024, has been the subject of criticism since taking office and has struggled to fill vacancies after experienced prosecutors resigned. He was previously sanctioned by a judge for filing briefs written using the assistance of artificial intelligence which “hallucinated” fake citations.

This story was updated on Tuesday, Sept. 15 to reflect the reinstatement of Solis’ law license.

For more than a year, the U.S. Department of Energy has repeatedly extended the lifespan of a coal plant in West Olive, Michigan, arguing the power generated at the facility was needed to help address a national energy emergency.

However, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a ruling issued Friday, said it was unpersuaded by the department’s justifications for keeping the J.H. Campbell Coal Plant online, determining that the department had exceeded the emergency authority granted by the Federal Power Act.

“There is no dispute that for almost a century states have exercised authority, preserved by the Federal Power Act, to regulate in-state power plants for the economic and environmental benefit of their citizens,” Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote for the panel. “It is the states — informed by federal, regional, and load-serving entities’ assessments of available supply and reliability needs — that bear the responsibility to plan for and avert reliability risks on an ongoing basis. To that end, states decide which generation resources must be built, expanded, reduced, or shut down.”

The panel ultimately vacated the order.

The Campbell plant’s owner, Consumers Energy, announced a plan to retire the facility in 2021. The Michigan Public Service Commission, which oversees energy companies within the state, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the energy grid operator for the central United States, each signed off on the plant’s retirement, with MISO determining the move would not violate its reliability criteria.

“The Department’s position would empower it to pick its preferred power sources in Michigan — or, presumably, any other state — and order them to operate without regard to the multiple procedural and substantive constraints built into state reliability planning processes,” Pillard wrote, determining that the department’s emergency authority “is best read to apply where the Department identifies a risk of substantial harm from inadequate electricity supply that calls for immediate action by DOE in particular.”

In addition to the Campbell plant, the Trump Administration extended the operation of five other plants in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Washington.

Retiring the Campbell plant was expected to save Mchigan residents $600 million by 2040. Consumers Energy’s quarterly report filed on June 30 notes that keeping the plant online has cost the company $259 million after factoring in the $239 million in revenue it received by selling power from the plant to MISO.

Consumers Energy Media Relations Specialist Brian Wheeler told Michigan Advance the company is reviewing the court’s ruling. 

“While that happens, we are continuing to comply with the current 90-day Department of Energy order that keeps the Campbell plant operating,” Wheeler said in an email. “Ultimately, we will follow the law and work to ensure that everyone who benefits from power from the Campbell plant across the Midwest pays their fair share.”

Consumers Energy is seeking to recover the cost of keeping the plant open from ratepayers in Michigan, as well as energy customers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, challenged the Department of Energy’s order and its subsequent extensions on behalf of the people of Michigan. Friday marked the first time a decision had been made on any of those challenges. 

“I am relieved that the court saw through this facade and threw out the DOE’s order that had zero basis in reality,” Nessel said in a statement. “My office has been fighting this unlawful political stunt at every turn, and this ruling proves what we have been saying all along: this administration does not get to invent fake emergencies to bypass the rule of law against the best interests of Michigan residents. We remain committed to fighting these nonsensical orders and protecting our ratepayers.”

Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Clean Air Task Force and the Environmental Defense Fund also petitioned the court to set aside the order.

In the court’s ruling, Pillard notes that the U.S. Department of Energy order it reviewed had already expired, as each renewal has extended the plant’s lifespan by 90 days.

Earthjustice attorney Michael Lenoff, in an interview with the Advance, called on the department to follow the law and rescind its most recent order extending the plant’s operations through Nov. 14.

“If it doesn’t and continues to issue these unlawful emergency orders, we will challenge them in court,” Lenoff said.

RENO, Nev. — School transportation departments may not be legally required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards but ignoring them is a risk few districts can afford to take, explaiend school transportation safety expert Jeff Cassell.

Speaking Monday at STN EXPO West, Cassell urged transportation leaders to voluntarily adopt OSHA safety practices for maintenance facilities, technicians and even drivers, arguing that the true measure of safety is not regulatory compliance but systematically removing risk before it leads to injury, litigation or loss of life.

“The loss that costs the least is the one that was prevented,” Cassell told conference attendees.

For school district transportation departments facing staffing shortages, aging facilities and evolving vehicle technology, Cassell said implementing OSHA-based procedures is one of the most effective ways to reduce operational risk while protecting employees and students.

Drawing on his experience as former vice president and corporate risk manager for Laidlaw, where he oversaw insurance, claims and safety programs across roughly 480 locations in North America, Cassell recounted how a mechanic’s death beneath a collapsing school bus exposed widespread deficiencies in shop safety.

Following the fatality, OSHA inspections resulted in significant fines, but Cassell said the larger lesson was that many maintenance facilities simply lacked consistent safety procedures.

“We asked who was OSHA compliant, and at least half argued it didn’t apply because they were exempt,” he said. “Legally, many school districts may be exempt. That doesn’t mean it’s the right way to operate.”

Unlike private school bus contractors and other businesses, government-operated transportation departments generally are not subject to federal OSHA enforcement, though some states have their own workplace safety requirements. Cassell emphasized that districts should view OSHA not as a regulatory burden but as a proven framework for preventing injuries.

The Definition of Safety

Central to his presentation was a simple definition that shaped the remainder of the session.

“Safety means freedom from risk,” he said. “If you reduce risk, you’re safer. If you remove risk, you’re safe.”

That philosophy shifts attention away from simply reacting to accidents and toward identifying the conditions that create them.

Cassell argued that risk typically stems from two sources: Unsafe equipment and unsafe behaviors.

Faulty jacks, damaged lifting equipment, unsecured ladders, worn electrical cords and improperly stored chemicals all create unnecessary hazards, he said. But he estimated that most workplace risk results from what he called “conscious and deliberate unsafe behaviors,” including skipping procedures to save time, working beneath unsupported vehicles, failing to use spotters when backing buses, or ignoring lockout/tagout requirements.

“The rewards for taking risks are minimal and short-term,” he said. “The consequences can be permanent and catastrophic.”

Throughout the presentation, Cassell reinforced his message with real-world incidents, including mechanics killed beneath buses, propane explosions that severely burned employees, tire explosions that permanently disabled technicians, and injuries caused by high-pressure grease equipment.

He said each case, including one that occurred earlier this month in Pennsylvania when a bus rolled over a mechanic reportedly working on the brake line, shares a common thread: Established safety procedures either were absent or ignored.

Additionally, maintenance shops remain among the highest-risk environments in pupil transportation.

Rather than focusing on blame after an incident, Cassell encouraged transportation leaders to build systems that prevent errors before they occur.

That includes documented policies, annual refresher training, leadership accountability and regular facility inspections covering everything from housekeeping and fire prevention to hazardous materials, electrical systems, personal protective equipment and emergency response planning.

---

Related: School Bus Maintenance Process Recommendations Influenced by Technology
Related: Safety in Sight
Related: Workplace Culture Intentionally Built by Transportation Leaders Builds Stronger Teams

---

Cassell outlined 26 OSHA subject areas applicable to maintenance personnel and three additional topics for drivers. He said the material can be effectively delivered through approximately four hours of annual training broken into manageable sessions.

Equally important, he added, is documenting that training.

“If something goes wrong, you can show you made the best effort to stop it happening in the first place,” Cassell said.

Leadership ultimately determines whether safety becomes part of an organization’s culture, he added.

“If it matters to the boss, it matters to you,” Cassell said, encouraging managers to establish clear expectations, enforce policies consistently and never allow unsafe shortcuts simply because operations are busy.

For transportation departments balancing budget pressures and operational demands, Cassell acknowledged that implementing comprehensive safety programs requires commitment. But he argued the investment is small compared with the financial and human costs of workplace injuries.

Whether OSHA enforcement applies or not, he concluded, the goal should remain the same.

“I’m a great believer in it,” Cassell said. “Whether it’s the law or not the law, you should be doing it.”

Written with the assistance of AI from a session transcript.

The post Safety by Choice: Why School Districts Should Embrace OSHA Standards appeared first on School Transportation News.