Latest news with #FinalRule
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Four groups file federal challenge to state's right to permit injection wells for carbon storage
May 14—dbeard @ MORGANTOWN — The West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization and three environmental groups have joined in a federal court challenge to the U.S. EPA granting West Virginia the right to primacy in permitting Class VI Underground Injection Wells (UIC) — used for carbon capture and sequestration. They contend the state won't adequately fund or conduct oversight of the permitting, posing environmental and health hazards. In the most recent court action, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by the state and the Department of Environmental Protection to intervene in the case in order to protect the state's interests. The four petitioners — WVSORO, Sierra Club, West Virginia Rivers Coalition and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy — filed their challenge on April 11. The state and DEP moved to intervene on May 8 and the court granted the motion on May 9. The petitioners then issued a press release on Tuesday spelling out their reasoning. But first, some quick background. Class VI well permitting authority belongs to the EPA for most states. States can apply for and receive primary enforcement authority, often called primacy, to implement EPA approved UIC programs. The EPA is notorious for dragging its feet in approving permits — often taking years. West Virginia applied for primacy in May 2024 after more than two years of consultation and coordination with EPA, the state said in its May 8 motion, and primacy was granted on Feb. 26 this year, via a Final Rule. West Virginia became the fourth state to obtain primacy, following North Dakota, Louisiana and Wyoming. The four groups are suing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and EPA Region III Regional Administrator Amy Van Blarcom-Lackey. In their motion to intervene, the state and DEP note that EPA's UIC regulations are meant to prevent underground injection from endangering drinking water sources, though the Safe Drinking Water Act allows States to seek primacy to implement and enforce these regulations within their own borders. "Transferring primacy to West Virginia allows the Department of Environmental Protection to apply its local-level expertise while relieving a continuing permitting backlog at the federal level, " they said. They cite several reasons for intervening. Among them, "West Virginia has a substantial interest in the regulation and management of its own natural resources. After all, local land and water management is 'the quintessential state activity, '" Also, the state has a direct financial interest. It spent years seeking primacy. "If Petitioners succeed, then all that work will be for naught. Perhaps worse still, Petitioners' challenge to the Final Rule could impede or delay the resolution of important well permit applications, which could in turn undermine the State's broader economic interests by stymying anticipated carbon-sequestration-related projects." However, the petitioners question the state's competence. They say the state's proposed program did not meet federal minimum standards and includes key provisions that are beyond EPA's statutory and constitutional authority to approve. Dave McMahon, co-founder of WVSORO, said, "WVSORO is particularly concerned because the Legislature and DEP have done a miserable job overseeing other similar environmental processes." The state has more than 12, 000 unplugged gas wells, with 4, 500 of them orphaned — meaning with no current operator. "Pollution from these unplugged wells can cause problems. That threat and even their mere existence sticking out of the ground decreases citizen's property values and uses. So we oppose trusting the oversight of these dangerous wells to the state." The income tax cuts authorized by the Legislature, McMahon said, means funding for the program will have to come from industry fees imposed by the Legislature, and he's skeptical about that. "Not much gets out of our current Legislature without an industry permission slip. So we are really sure this West Virginia state oversight will be underfunded." As an example, he notes there are only 23 fund well inspector positions for 75, 000 wells and 20, 000 tanks — and only 18 inspectors working. "If one of these huge sequestration storage fields should leak, the way currently existing gas storage fields sometimes do, theCO2 is not itself poisonous, but it can displace the fresh air that contains oxygen that people need to breathe leading to asphyxiation or suffocation." Autumn Crowe, deputy director of West Virginia Rivers Coalition, commented, "Adequate oversight of carbon injection is critical to protect the health of West Virginians. Our communities are already overburdened by pollution and the addition of another source of a potentially deadly gas puts our communities at even greater risk. We must ensure that we are prioritizing the health and safety of residents in close proximity to the proposed injection sites." The petitioners are awaiting a court briefing order to present their legal arguments to the Court in their opening brief. Sen. Shelly Moore Capito was a leading advocate in the primacy quest and now chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee. She said on Wednesday, "I have strongly advocated for West Virginia's primacy over Class VI wells for carbon storage because of its potential to contribute to our state's future development and the fact that our environmental leaders know our state best. "The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection worked for over 3 1/2 years on their application to receive this authority, " she said, "and that dedication is reflected by both Republican and Democrat Administrations approving their submission. The WVDEP has unparalleled experience with and knowledge of our state's geology and water resources, and I'm confident that they will exercise the authority they have been granted well and in accordance with the law."
Dominion Post
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Dominion Post
Four groups file federal challenge to state's right to permit injection wells for carbon storage
dbeard@ MORGANTOWN – The West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization and three environmental groups have joined in a federal court challenge to the U.S. EPA granting West Virginia the right to primacy in permitting Class VI Underground Injection Wells (UIC) – used for carbon capture and sequestration. They contend the state won't adequately fund or conduct oversight of the permitting, posing environmental and health hazards. In the most recent court action, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by the state and the Department of Environmental Protection to intervene in the case in order to protect the state's interests. The four petitioners – WVSORO, Sierra Club, West Virginia Rivers Coalition and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy – filed their challenge on April 11. The state and DEP moved to intervene on May 8 and the court granted the motion on May 9. The petitioners then issued a press release on Tuesday spelling out their reasoning. But first, some quick background. Class VI well permitting authority belongs to the EPA for most states. States can apply for and receive primary enforcement authority, often called primacy, to implement EPA approved UIC programs. The EPA is notorious for dragging its feet in approving permits – often taking years. West Virginia applied for primacy in May 2024 after more than two years of consultation and coordination with EPA, the state said in its May 8 motion, and primacy was granted on Feb. 26 this year, via a Final Rule. West Virginia became the fourth state to obtain primacy, following North Dakota, Louisiana and Wyoming. The four groups are suing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and EPA Region III Regional Administrator Amy Van Blarcom-Lackey. In their motion to intervene, the state and DEP note that EPA's UIC regulations are meant to prevent underground injection from endangering drinking water sources, though the Safe Drinking Water Act allows States to seek primacy to implement and enforce these regulations within their own borders. 'Transferring primacy to West Virginia allows the Department of Environmental Protection to apply its local-level expertise while relieving a continuing permitting backlog at the federal level,' they said. They cite several reasons for intervening. Among them, 'West Virginia has a substantial interest in the regulation and management of its own natural resources. After all, local land and water management is 'the quintessential state activity,'' Also, the state has a direct financial interest. It spent years seeking primacy. 'If Petitioners succeed, then all that work will be for naught. Perhaps worse still, Petitioners' challenge to the Final Rule could impede or delay the resolution of important well permit applications, which could in turn undermine the State's broader economic interests by stymying anticipated carbon-sequestration-related projects.' However, the petitioners question the state's competence. They say the state's proposed program did not meet federal minimum standards and includes key provisions that are beyond EPA's statutory and constitutional authority to approve. Dave McMahon, co-founder of WVSORO, said, 'WVSORO is particularly concerned because the Legislature and DEP have done a miserable job overseeing other similar environmental processes.' The state has more than 12,000 unplugged gas wells, with 4,500 of them orphaned – meaning with no current operator. 'Pollution from these unplugged wells can cause problems. That threat and even their mere existence sticking out of the ground decreases citizen's property values and uses. So we oppose trusting the oversight of these dangerous wells to the state.' The income tax cuts authorized by the Legislature, McMahon said, means funding for the program will have to come from industry fees imposed by the Legislature, and he's skeptical about that. 'Not much gets out of our current Legislature without an industry permission slip. So we are really sure this West Virginia state oversight will be underfunded.' As an example, he notes there are only 23 fund well inspector positions for 75,000 wells and 20,000 tanks – and only 18 inspectors working. 'If one of these huge sequestration storage fields should leak, the way currently existing gas storage fields sometimes do, theCO2 is not itself poisonous, but it can displace the fresh air that contains oxygen that people need to breathe leading to asphyxiation or suffocation.' Autumn Crowe, deputy director of West Virginia Rivers Coalition, commented, 'Adequate oversight of carbon injection is critical to protect the health of West Virginians. Our communities are already overburdened by pollution and the addition of another source of a potentially deadly gas puts our communities at even greater risk. We must ensure that we are prioritizing the health and safety of residents in close proximity to the proposed injection sites.' The petitioners are awaiting a court briefing order to present their legal arguments to the Court in their opening brief. Sen. Shelly Moore Capito was a leading advocate in the primacy quest and now chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee. She said on Wednesday, 'I have strongly advocated for West Virginia's primacy over Class VI wells for carbon storage because of its potential to contribute to our state's future development and the fact that our environmental leaders know our state best. 'The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection worked for over 3 ½ years on their application to receive this authority,' she said, 'and that dedication is reflected by both Republican and Democrat Administrations approving their submission. The WVDEP has unparalleled experience with and knowledge of our state's geology and water resources, and I'm confident that they will exercise the authority they have been granted well and in accordance with the law.'
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Nursing home minimum staffing rule stopped by federal judge in Texas
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A federal judge in Texas blocked a policy aimed at increasing staffing requirements within long-term care facilities and nursing homes. Health officials, under former President Joe Biden, finalized a rule to require any skilled nursing facility that receives federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid to offer more standardized nursing care. For example, these facilities would have to provide 0.55 hours of care from a registered nurse to each resident every day, as well as 2.45 hours of care from a nurse aide. It also required facilities to have a registered nurse onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week. PREVIOUS: US lawmakers fight over how to handle nursing home staffing At the time, federal officials said the rule would increase the quality of care and safety for residents in these facilities. Advocates for the long-term care industry and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, however, argued the rule would put pressure on facilities already facing staffing shortages and could force some rural facilities to close — affecting people's access to care. On Tuesday, Paxton called the judge's decision to toss out the rule a 'massive victory for Texans who rely on nursing homes for care.' Last year, he sued the Biden administration over the rule, claiming it violated what is known as the Major Questions Doctrine, which forbids government agencies from passing regulations on significant topics that should be handled by Congress. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the rule was not consistent with existing legislation governing nursing homes. In his April decision, he wrote that Congress instituted a baseline of eight hours of a day for a registered nurse to be on staff for most facilities and that a facility's individual needs be considered when it comes to staffing. BACKGROUND: White House announces new national nursing home staffing minimums 'Though rooted in laudable goals, the Final Rule still must be consistent with Congress's statutes. To allow otherwise permits agencies to amend statutes though they lack legislative power,' the court document reads. It's a similar argument made by the American Health Care Association (AHCA), which represents nearly 15,000 long-term care facilities and nursing homes across the country. It joined the Texas Health Care Association and other industry advocates in suing the federal government over the rule, too, arguing the regulatory bodies 'decided to take matters into its own hands' in creating the rule. AHCA's president praised the judge's decision, again calling the rule 'unreasonable.' These associations have been ringing alarm bells about staffing shortages — exacerbated by the pandemic — for years. KXAN investigators have been following the back-and-forth over how to handle the issue since before these increased standards were proposed in 2023. INVESTIGATES: First-of-its-kind nursing home staffing minimum proposed. Will it protect Texas residents? A group of federal lawmakers stepped in and filed legislation to try and prevent such a rule about minimum staffing standards before it was finalized. Other lawmakers pushed back, supporting stronger requirements for these facilities. In a House Ways and Means committee hearing on the legislation last year, U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, argued companies running these long-term care facilities actually had the funds to address worker shortages. He called on the industry itself to raise pay and better conditions for employees. 'While qualified workers are available, they are not willing to accept minimum wage, no benefits and insufficient support for emptying bed pans, lifting people out of their beds and other demanding tasks,' Doggett said. MORE: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sues Biden Administration over nursing home staffing rule Organizations such as AARP and AFL-CIO joined the fight. In a letter opposing that legislation, AARP wrote it had heard from thousands of its members 'whose loved ones suffered because of poor staffing in nursing homes.' The letter also pointed to research about the benefits of increased staffing on both patients and the workforce. The AARP letter read, in part, 'taxpayers spend over $80 billion annually through Medicare and Medicaid to provide the hands-on care our most vulnerable seniors need. American families expect that nursing homes are using these federal dollars to provide quality care. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.' MORE: Caregivers push for national staffing requirements In his recent decision, Judge Kacsmaryk acknowledged failures in the care of the nation's elderly, adding, 'these deficiencies deserve an effectual response.' However, he emphasized that any regulatory response must be consistent with legislation from Congress. In its statement, AHCA's president said, 'Our nation's aging population demands that we find a better way. We look forward to working with Congress and the [Trump] Administration to pursue more common-sense workforce solutions.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Illinois Attorney General cautions danger of revoking ACA final rule
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) — A group of 21 attorneys general, including Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, are warning the Trump administration against stopping new rules for the Affordable Care Act. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published a Final Rule that would increase patient access to state and federal exchanges under the ACA. The Trump administration is trying to undo the implementation of that rule. Measure removing cannabis odor as probable cause for warrantless vehicle search passes Senate Officials said the variety of changes will make up to two million Americans lose healthcare coverage in 2026. 'These proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act are unnecessary and disturbing,' Raoul said in a statement. 'Everyone in this country deserves access to lifesaving health services and these changes could cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to be uninsured. I will continue to collaborate with other attorneys general to preserve access to care that saves lives, reduces disparities in health care and improves public health in our communities.' One key change under the rule is allowing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients (also called Dreamers) to buy health insurance on ACA exchanges. The attorneys general argue this will cause significant health and economic damage by not providing coverage and in turn, will drive up costs for everyone. The final rule also restricted health insurance companies from denying enrollment to people who missed a single payment. Companies would be allowed to do this no matter how long ago was the missed payment and insurers would not be required to notify potential consumers the denial is because they owe a past-due premium. Illinois AG files lawsuit against Trump admin's efforts to reduce federal agencies The rule will also force states to shorten their open enrollment periods, and exclude coverage for gender-affirming care as 'an essential health benefit'. The full letter can be found here. Other attorneys general on the letter include the ones representing Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Judge strikes down controversial Biden mandate to increase nursing home staffing
A federal judge in Texas on Monday nixed a controversial Biden administration rule that would have required nursing homes to boost their nursing staff in coming years. US District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk noted that staffing and other deficiencies at nursing homes 'deserve an effectual response. But any regulatory response must be consistent with Congress's legislation governing nursing homes.' 'Though rooted in laudable goals, the Final Rule still must be consistent with Congress's statutes,' wrote Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald Trump. The Biden administration finalized the first-ever minimum staffing regulation for nursing homes last April. The mandate, which would have required facilities to hire more registered nurses and nurse aides, was quickly challenged in court by nursing home operators and their trade associations. Nursing homes already struggle to fill open positions, they said. 'This unrealistic staffing mandate threatened to close nursing homes and displace vulnerable seniors,' Clif Porter, CEO of American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said in a statement. Meeting the proposed mandate would have required nursing homes to hire more than 100,000 additional nurses and nurse aides at an annual cost of $6.8 billion, according to the association's 2023 analysis. Nursing home trade groups have pushed Congress to improve funding for nursing home care, which is mainly provided through Medicaid. The staffing rule, they noted, did not provide any support for recruitment and training of nursing staff. 'Our stance has always been clear: imposing mandates rather than addressing funding adequacy and workforce sufficiency is wrong-headed,' Katie Smith Sloan, CEO of LeadingAge, which represents nonprofit providers of aging services and was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement. The staffing mandate had also raised bipartisan concerns in Congress. A bipartisan Senate bill and similar legislation introduced by House Republicans would have prohibited the Department of Health and Human Services from finalizing the proposed rule. Nearly a hundred House members from both parties wrote a letter to then-Health Secretary Xavier Becerra expressing their concerns with the proposed rule, particularly that it could lead to widespread nursing home closures. The rule called for all nursing homes that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding to provide a total of at least 3.48 hours of nursing care per resident per day. Plus, nursing homes would have had to have a registered nurse onsite at all times. The mandate would have been phased in over three years, with rural communities having up to five years. Some 75% of nursing homes would have had to hire staff, HHS said when it finalized the rule. The agency did not immediately return a request for comment about the judge's decision.
