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.