Planet Detroit Candidate Survey
What are the three most pressing environmental issues facing the communities you seek to serve? Please rank them in order of priority and briefly explain why you chose each.
1. Clean Drinking Water — Clean water, PFAS, and contamination cleanup. Families should not have to wonder whether their drinking water, groundwater, or local waterways are safe. PFAS and other contamination issues are public health, environmental justice, and economic development issues because contaminated land and water affect families, neighborhoods, redevelopment, and long-term community trust.
2. Clean Energy — Utility affordability, energy reliability, and consumer protection. Environmental policy must also protect people at the kitchen table. Seniors, low-income residents, working families, and people on fixed incomes cannot be asked to absorb repeated utility rate increases without strong accountability. Clean energy must be implemented in a way that improves reliability, lowers long-term costs, and protects vulnerable communities.
3. Air Quality — Cumulative pollution burdens and environmental justice. Some communities face multiple burdens at once: aging infrastructure, poor air quality, contaminated sites, industrial exposure, flooding risks, and high utility or water costs. State policy should recognize those combined impacts and make sure communities that have carried the heaviest burdens are not left behind.
Michigan law requires utilities to reach 100% clean energy by 2040. If elected, would you support maintaining this law, or would you support revising or repealing it? Please explain your position.
Maintain the current law and timeline
I support maintaining Michigan’s clean energy law and timeline while making sure implementation protects affordability, reliability, workers, and communities that have historically carried the greatest pollution burden. The transition must be done in a way that strengthens the grid, lowers long-term costs, and does not leave working families behind.
More than two dozen Michigan communities are considering or have approved large-scale data center developments. These facilities can consume as much electricity as a small city and place significant demands on local water and energy infrastructure. What role should state government play in overseeing data center development, and what guardrails should the state legislature enact to protect communities where data centers are proposed?
State government should require transparency, local input, and enforceable guardrails before large-scale data centers are approved. Data centers should disclose projected water use, energy demand, grid impacts, backup power plans, and infrastructure needs before receiving public support or moving forward at scale.
I support economic development and good jobs, but those projects must not strain local water systems, increase utility bills for residents, or shift private infrastructure costs onto ratepayers. The Legislature should require community impact reviews, ratepayer protections, water-use transparency, local government consultation, and accountability for any tax incentive or public benefit provided. Michigan can support innovation and jobs without sacrificing clean water, affordability, or environmental justice.
PFAS contamination has been detected in drinking water, groundwater, and surface water across Michigan. Cleanup efforts are underway, but many affected communities are still waiting for action. What is the single most important step the officeholder in this position should take on PFAS in the next term?
The single most important step is to accelerate source identification and cleanup while making sure affected residents have access to safe drinking water. Michigan should prioritize communities with known exposure, require transparency in testing and public notice, and hold polluters accountable so taxpayers and families are not left paying for contamination they did not cause.
Michigan residents in some communities face disproportionate exposure to air pollution, contaminated water, and industrial waste. Do you support requiring Michigan regulators to assess cumulative environmental and health impacts on overburdened communities before approving new permits for polluting facilities?
Yes
Regulators should consider cumulative environmental and health impacts so permitting decisions reflect the real-world burdens residents are already carrying, while using clear standards, transparency, and a fair process.
Utility rate cases directly affect what Michigan residents pay for electricity and gas. DTE and Consumers Energy have requested frequent significant rate increases in recent years. Should elected officials play a greater role in holding utility companies accountable for rate hikes and rising energy costs?
Yes. Elected officials should play a greater role in demanding transparency, accountability, and affordability when utilities seek rate increases. Families should not be asked to absorb repeated increases without clear proof that the spending is necessary, prudent, and tied to reliability, safety, and long-term cost savings.
I support stronger scrutiny of utility profits, grid investments, shutoff practices, and the impact of rate hikes on seniors, low-income households, small businesses, and working families. Clean energy and grid modernization should not become an excuse to shift unreasonable costs onto people who are already struggling.
Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline runs through the Straits of Mackinac and carries crude oil and natural gas liquids between Wisconsin and Ontario. A proposed tunnel beneath the lakebed to house a replacement pipeline has faced legal and regulatory challenges for years. What is your position on the future of Line 5?
My position on Line 5 is guided by three responsibilities: protecting the Great Lakes, respecting the legal and regulatory process, and protecting workers and families from sudden energy or economic disruption.
I have voted with Upper Peninsula workers, families, and energy reliability in mind because energy policy cannot ignore real impacts on people and communities. At the same time, the Great Lakes are irreplaceable, and any infrastructure decision involving the Straits of Mackinac must meet the highest environmental, safety, legal, and regulatory standards.
I do not support leaving risk unaddressed in the Straits, and I do not support a reckless transition that harms working families or the Upper Peninsula. Michigan should continue moving toward cleaner energy while ensuring that any decision on Line 5 protects the Great Lakes, honors the law, respects tribal and community concerns, and prevents avoidable harm to workers and ratepayers.
Drinking water is becoming increasingly unaffordable for Michiganders in both rural and urban areas, leading to water shutoffs. Would you support legislation that caps water bills for low-income Michiganders and adds shutoff protections?
Yes. Water is essential to public health, and low-income Michiganders should not lose access to safe drinking water because they cannot afford rising bills. I support water affordability legislation that includes shutoff protections, targeted assistance for low-income households, sustainable funding, and accountability so local systems can continue maintaining safe infrastructure.
This issue affects both rural and urban communities. Affordability policy should protect families while also helping communities maintain safe, reliable water systems.
Michigan is home to more than 18,000 contaminated sites. Do you support or oppose legislation to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up these sites?
Support
I support holding polluters accountable for cleanup because taxpayers and impacted communities should not be left paying the price for contamination they did not cause. Cleanup policy should prioritize public health, contaminated drinking water, redevelopment of unsafe sites, and timely remediation in communities that have carried disproportionate environmental burdens.
Data center proposals have multiplied across Michigan since the spring, and it is by far the most common topic readers have asked candidates about. Would you support a pause on new hyperscale data center approvals until state guardrails on water use, noise, utility rate impacts, and local approval are in place? Please explain, including whether data centers should keep their state tax breaks, whether local communities should be able to reject them, and whether they should pay the full cost of the grid and water capacity they require.
Yes
I support a pause on new hyperscale approvals while Michigan puts enforceable water, noise, grid, ratepayer and local approval rules in place. My spring answer called for transparency and local input before projects move forward at scale. Communities should be able to reject a project that does not meet their needs. Developers should pay the full incremental cost of the grid and water capacity they require; families should not subsidize it through higher bills. I would revisit state tax breaks and condition any incentive on independently verified jobs, community benefits, water safeguards and full cost recovery, with a clawback if promises are not met. A pause should be tied to clear standards and a prompt, public rulemaking process.
Communities near heavy industry see frequent air quality alerts, wildfire smoke now adds unhealthy-air days statewide, and EGLE has limited staff to inspect facilities and enforce permits. Do you support stronger air pollution enforcement, such as higher penalties for repeat violators or emission limits on unhealthy-air days? What specifically would you do to protect vulnerable residents, including those in the most polluted zip codes, on those days?
Yes. I would fund more EGLE inspectors and air monitoring in neighborhoods carrying the greatest pollution burden, raise penalties for repeat violations, and require prompt public notice and corrective action. On unhealthy-air days, the state should coordinate clear multilingual alerts, school and outdoor-work guidance, clean-air spaces, and filters for high-risk households and public facilities. I would consider temporary emission controls where legally and technically appropriate, based on health data and an enforceable standard. Residents should see neighborhood-level readings and a public record of inspections and violations, not have to guess whether the air is safe.
Michigan is already seeing more extreme heat, storms, and flooding, and households pay some of the highest electric rates in the Midwest for some of the least reliable service. What specific steps would you take in your first term toward the MI Healthy Climate Plan goals, and would you support community solar and expanded weatherization so residents can own or share in clean power and lower their bills?
I support maintaining Michigan’s clean energy law and 2040 timeline while protecting affordability and reliability. In the next term I would push for community solar that lets renters and households without suitable roofs share in bill savings, expand weatherization and efficient heating for lower-income homes, and hold utilities to measurable reliability and cost standards. I would prioritize the neighborhoods with the highest energy burden and pollution exposure. The state should publish participation, bill savings, outage and emissions results by community so we can correct programs that are not reaching people.
Federal cuts to EPA staffing, enforcement, and Great Lakes funding are shifting responsibility for air, water, and public health protection to the states. Should Michigan backfill that funding and enforcement, and how would you pay for it? What would you do to make Michigan's own environmental protections durable against future rollbacks?
Yes, I would protect core drinking-water testing, inspections, cleanup and Great Lakes work if federal support falls short. I would first seek remaining federal and settlement dollars, enforce polluter-pay cleanup obligations, and target state appropriations to the most urgent public-health gaps rather than make households carry the cost. Dedicated inspection capacity, transparent annual reporting and clear standards in state law would make protections more durable. I would work with local health departments and tribal governments so gaps are identified early and resources reach the communities facing the greatest exposure.
Michigan's forests, wetlands, and public lands support clean water, wildlife, outdoor recreation, and flood protection, yet the DNR estimates nearly a billion dollars in backlogged capital needs. What are your top priorities for protecting these lands over the next term, including wetland and floodplain protection, groundwater withdrawals by bottlers, and native habitat, and how would you fund them?
My priorities are protecting wetlands and floodplains that absorb storms, safeguarding drinking-water sources, and restoring native habitat on public land. I would require transparent review and monitoring of large groundwater withdrawals, including bottling operations, and ensure local communities can see the cumulative impact on aquifers and nearby waters. DNR should publish and rank its capital backlog by safety, flood protection and ecological value, then fund the highest-priority repairs through a multiyear capital plan, available federal funds and appropriate user or polluter fees. I would not trade away public land or water protections to cover a short-term budget gap.
Key Environmental Votes
Selected by Planet Detroit from the Michigan Legislature’s 2025–26 session. Each title links to the official bill page.
Creates new state safety rules for dams on inland lakes, a response to the 2020 Edenville and Sanford dam failures that flooded Midland. A Yes vote supported the rules.
SB 947 · Sep 22, 2026 · Passed 96–7 · Official title: Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for.
Limits how many times the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy can ask an applicant to revise a permit application, part of a package to speed up permitting. A Yes vote supported the limit.
HB 5938 · Jun 25, 2026 · Passed 62–45 · Official title: Environmental protection: permits; revisions of permit applications; limit.
Requires the state to use the longest time period the federal Clean Air Act allows when it calculates a facility's emission rates for the state emissions inventory. Averaging over a longer period smooths out short-term spikes, so reported rates can come out lower. The state environmental agency and environmental groups opposed the bill; business and conservative groups supported it. A Yes vote was to require the longer averaging period.
HB 5557 · Jun 4, 2026 · Passed 58–50 · Official title: Environmental protection: air pollution; calculation of emission profile data; modify.
Rewrites the legal definition of a wetland so that fewer wetlands fall under state protection. A Yes vote was to narrow the definition.
HB 5536 · Jun 4, 2026 · Passed 57–51 · Official title: Natural resources: wetlands; definition of wetland; update.
Requires electric utilities to lower residential rates in line with the savings they got from the 2023 cut in business personal property taxes. A Yes vote supported the requirement.
HB 5879 · May 20, 2026 · Passed 57–44 · Official title: Public utilities: rates; reduction of residential rates in correlation to personal property tax savings; require.
The 2023 clean energy law requires utilities to reach 100% clean electricity by 2040 and 60% renewable by 2035. This bill eliminates those standards. A Yes vote was to eliminate them.
HB 5711 · May 12, 2026 · Passed 57–48 · Official title: Energy: alternative sources; clean and renewable energy standards; eliminate.
Prohibits cities, townships and counties from banning natural gas service or gas appliances in new buildings. A Yes vote was to block local gas bans.
HB 4486 · Dec 17, 2025 · Passed 61–42 · Official title: Public utilities: natural gas utilities; local units of government imposing a ban on the use of natural gas or installation of natural gas infrastructure; prohibit.
Requires counties to issue a 'brown alert' when sewage or E. coli reaches dangerous levels in local waters. A Yes vote supported the alerts.
HB 4427 · Oct 30, 2025 · Passed 94–10 · Official title: Counties: employees and officers; brown alert for dangerous levels of sewage or E. coli; require.
Defines advanced nuclear reactors in state law, part of a package to promote nuclear and hydrogen energy and training in Michigan. A Yes vote supported it.
HB 4127 · Oct 28, 2025 · Passed 85–19 · Official title: Energy: nuclear; definition of advanced nuclear reactors; provide for.
Raises the fees the state charges for environmental permits and programs under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, to fund the agency's work. A Yes vote was to raise the fees.
SB 579 · Oct 2, 2025 · Passed 104–5 · Official title: Natural resources: other; certain fees in the natural resources and environmental protection act; modify.
Loosens state permit requirements for discharging wastewater into the ground. A Yes vote was to loosen them.
HB 4192 · Jun 12, 2025 · Passed 65–32 · Official title: Environmental protection: permits; groundwater discharge permit requirements; modify.
The bill defines a natural gas fueled reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) placed in service before the bill’s effective date to facilitate the retirement of coal-fired generation in the Upper Peninsula as a clean energy system for purposes of the act. A Yes vote supported the broader definition.
HB 4007 · May 7, 2025 · Passed 82–27 · Official title: Energy: alternative sources; clean energy system; expand definition of.
Michigan's 2023 clean energy law lets the state approve large solar, wind and battery projects that local governments reject. This bill repeals that power and leaves the decision to local zoning. A Yes vote was to repeal the state's authority.
HB 4028 · Apr 30, 2025 · Passed 58–48 · Official title: Energy: alternative sources; zoning exemptions for large-scale solar, wind, and energy storage facilities; eliminate.
Vote tallies are the Michigan Legislature’s roll calls as published by MichiganVotes.org. Votes chosen and summarized by Planet Detroit.
Campaign Money
- CARTER FOR MICHIGAN PAC$10,000
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PEOPLE$3,000
- MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$2,750
- March On PAC$2,500
- AMERICAN PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION PAC$2,000
Transactions reported to the Michigan Secretary of State through Aug 24, 2026 (Post-election 2026 campaign statement), summed for the 2025–26 cycle. Search the state database →