By: Maria Finnegan, National Field Manager
Date: May 28, 2026
About: Revision to “Begin Actual Construction” in the New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Program, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0618
To: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning, my name is Maria Finnegan, and I am a National Field Manager with Moms Clean Air Force. I am here today not only in my professional capacity, but also as a mother deeply concerned about my son’s future and health.
I strongly oppose EPA’s proposal to redefine what it means to “begin actual construction.” This is not a technical adjustment or minor procedural change. It represents a fundamental shift in how we protect public health in this country, and one that defies basic logic.
For decades, the New Source Review process has existed for a simple reason: before a major new source of pollution is built, communities deserve to understand the risks and have a voice in the decision-making process. It is a commonsense safeguard designed to ensure that economic development proceeds thoughtfully, transparently, and without sacrificing human health. But this proposal turns that logic upside down.
Under EPA’s proposed changes, companies could excavate land, build foundations, and install major site infrastructure before even applying for an air pollution permit. In other words, construction could move forward before communities know what pollution they may face, or what the consequences might be.
As a parent, I am teaching my five-year-old to ask for permission before, say, hammering a nail into the wall of our living room. Why can’t we ask the same of developers?
If we don’t, projects will steam roll ahead, and we all know what happens next. When companies have already invested millions of dollars into a site, stopping or meaningfully changing a project becomes extraordinarily difficult, even when serious concerns emerge. Communities are told that too much money has been spent, too many promises have been made, and that it is simply too late to turn back.
This is precisely why preconstruction review exists.
EPA’s proposal effectively allows companies to build momentum before the public has meaningful input and before health impacts are fully evaluated. That sets a dangerous precedent not only for environmental protection, but for how we make decisions about public safety more broadly.
After all, you wouldn’t build a hospital on a sinkhole and test the ground later, right? Yet this proposal embraces that same flawed logic when it comes to pollution and public health. And the stakes could not be higher.
Nearly half of all children in the United States already live with unhealthy levels of air pollution. Families deserve the right to ask what additional pollution will mean for their children’s developing lungs before construction begins—not after infrastructure is already in the ground.
The facilities most likely to benefit from this proposal, including AI data centers, petrochemical facilities, and fossil fuel infrastructure, are often proposed in communities already burdened by pollution, where children already face elevated risks of asthma, adverse birth outcomes, and other serious health harms.
We can’t afford to trade our children’s health for corporate convenience.
The New Source Review program remains one of the most important tools communities have to ensure that health impacts are examined before, not after, a major pollution source is built. Weakening that safeguard does not promote responsible development. It undermines it.
Economic development and innovation do matter. But they must proceed in ways that protect health and quality of life. Otherwise, what are we doing here?
I urge EPA to reject this proposal. Our children deserve a future where science, transparency, and prevention guide decision-making—not one where construction begins first and public health concerns are addressed only after the damage may already be done. Thank you.