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. Energy Costs — Reliable and Affordable Energy Infrastructure
Michigan families and businesses depend on reliable and affordable energy. Energy policy should prioritize a balanced approach that ensures sufficient generation capacity, grid reliability, and reasonable costs for consumers. Rising energy costs impact household budgets, small businesses, manufacturers, and schools. Environmental goals should be pursued without compromising affordability, reliability, or economic competitiveness.
2. Clean Drinking Water — Protection of Michigan's Water Resources
Michigan's lakes, rivers, groundwater, and Great Lakes are among our state's most valuable natural assets. Protecting water quality through responsible stewardship, infrastructure maintenance, and pollution prevention should remain a top priority. Safe drinking water and healthy waterways are essential to public health, recreation, tourism, and economic development.
3. Water Systems — Infrastructure Resilience and Dam Management
Michigan has experienced increasing concerns regarding aging dams, stormwater systems, and other critical infrastructure. Proper maintenance, modernization, and oversight are necessary to protect communities from flooding, property damage, and environmental harm. Investments should focus on long-term reliability and public safety while ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and transparently.
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.
Revise or repeal portions of the law
I support clean energy, but Michigan's energy policies must prioritize reliability, affordability, and grid stability for families and businesses. The current law should be revised to recognize the important role of hydroelectric, nuclear, and other dependable low-emission energy sources while avoiding mandates that drive up costs or threaten energy reliability.
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?
I do not oppose data centers. They are an important part of our future economy, just as the internet has become essential to modern life. However, data center developers should be responsible for providing sufficient power generation and infrastructure to support their operations without placing undue burdens on local communities, and any water-cooling systems should utilize closed-loop designs to minimize impacts on local water resources.
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 most important step is to help affected homeowners gain access to safe drinking water as quickly as possible. For communities with PFAS contamination, Michigan should prioritize assistance for whole-house filtration systems and other proven treatment solutions while holding responsible parties accountable where possible. Given the state's budget challenges, I believe existing spending priorities should be reviewed to ensure essential public health concerns such as PFAS remediation are addressed before expanding lower-priority programs.
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)
I support protecting public health and ensuring that significant environmental impacts are properly evaluated. However, any review process should be based on sound science, objective data, and existing regulatory frameworks rather than creating additional layers of bureaucracy that unnecessarily delay projects or economic development. My priority is to ensure communities are protected while maintaining a permitting process that is transparent, efficient, and predictable. Michigan should focus on enforcing existing environmental standards effectively before creating new regulatory requirements
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?
Elected officials should play a greater role in holding utilities accountable for rate increases and ensuring that Michigan families and businesses receive reliable service at a reasonable cost. While utility companies must justify their spending, policymakers must also recognize that state energy mandates and regulatory requirements can contribute to higher costs. Michigan should pursue long-term energy solutions that balance affordability, reliability, and environmental goals while protecting ratepayers from unnecessary increases.
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 a safe, environmentally responsible solution for Line 5 that protects the Great Lakes while maintaining reliable energy supplies for Michigan residents and businesses. Too often, energy infrastructure debates become driven by politics rather than practical solutions. Any decision regarding Line 5 should be based on sound engineering, environmental protection, energy reliability, and affordability, not ideology. If a tunnel or other modernization effort can significantly reduce environmental risk while maintaining energy security, it deserves serious consideration.
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?
No.
Michigan is blessed with abundant freshwater resources, and I do not believe a statewide cap on water bills is the right solution. Water costs vary significantly by community and are often driven by local infrastructure, treatment requirements, and system maintenance needs.
My priority would be ensuring that water systems are operated efficiently, infrastructure investments are made responsibly, and any assistance is targeted to those with genuine financial hardship rather than creating new statewide mandates that could shift costs onto other ratepayers.
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?
Oppse
It depends.
I support holding clearly identifiable polluters accountable when responsibility can be reasonably established. However, many contaminated sites are decades old, have changed ownership multiple times, or involve circumstances where assigning responsibility is difficult and costly.
My priority is protecting public health and getting sites cleaned up efficiently. Too often, years of litigation benefit attorneys while communities continue waiting for solutions. Michigan should focus on practical remediation, safe drinking water, and timely cleanup efforts while ensuring that accountability measures are fair, evidence-based, and do not create unintended harm for current property owners or local economies.