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. Data Centers — S. These projects are showing up fast across the district, and the air, water, and energy demands they bring are what I hear the most concern about.
2. Great Lakes — A lot of this district is on private wells and septic, and once contamination reaches that water, there is no easy fix.
3. Rising electric and — Rising electric and gas rates. Higher bills hit every household and small business here, and large new energy users only add to the pressure, so cost and environmental impact are tied together.
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.
Other (please explain below)
I love the 100% clean energy by 2040 goal in Public Act 235, but I do not support the separate 2023 siting law (Public Act 233) that lets very large projects effectively override local decisions. If the roles were reversed with, say, a goal of maximum data center capacity by 2040 overriding local control, most people would not support that.
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?
The state should set clear guardrails so larger customers can't push their costs or risks onto regular ratepayers and their water supply. The MPSC's recent protections are a good start, like requiring large users to pay for most of the capacity they reserve (around 80%), longer contract terms than simply a few years, and appropriate exit fees so towns are never left with stranded costs. Beyond that, I would push for real local siting authority, enforceable water-use rules, and clean-energy production commitments that actually get publicly tracked. Communities also deserve a clear picture of the pros and the cons up front, so there are no surprises and no bad blood on either side once a project is built.
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 accountability with actual teeth. Make the people and companies responsible for the contamination pay to clean it up and reimburse the communities and water systems currently stuck with the cost, on a clear timeline that treats this with the urgency it deserves.
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?
It depends (please explain below)
These reviews absolutely need to happen, but they have to be built on peer-reviewed science with a clear timeline, strict enough to protect overburdened communities without being so rigid that nothing reasonable can ever move forward.
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?
People here are already stretched paper-thin, and frequent rate increases are only making it worse. I would support more transparency in rate cases and a thorough look at whether increases are truly justified, so households and small businesses are not paying disproportionately for decisions that mainly benefit shareholders or a handful of very large customers.
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?
I support shutting down Line 5 in the Straits paired with a real transition plan, not just flipping a switch. Enbridge has acknowledged that a leak as large as roughly 140,700 gallons a day could go undetected, and University of Michigan modeling shows how far a spill would spread along the shoreline, which puts drinking water for millions of people at risk. Both of those are unacceptable. I also take the refinery workers, the trades, and Upper Peninsula propane supply seriously, which is exactly why the transition plan has to be done right.
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, I support common-sense shutoff protections for economically vulnerable households, especially those with kids, seniors, or medical needs, and proper income-based affordability help, which is what the University of Michigan's statewide assessment recommends. A lot of this district is on private wells and septic too, so any plan has to consider rural households and not just city systems. I'm also open to capping bills for low-income residents, but I want to look closely at how that is structured so it helps families without allowing for abuse that would put the systems that keep water safe for everybody at risk.
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
Polluting companies and people, not taxpayers, should carry the cost of cleaning up what they've contaminated, and Michigan's Part 201 cleanup framework should hold them accountable. I want the law written so liability falls on the people and companies who've actually caused the harm, not on an innocent farmer or property owner who later bought the land and discovered the problem.