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 — Water is Michigan's defining environmental issue. Communities across our state are confronting PFAS contamination while recent Supreme Court decisions, including Sackett v. EPA, have weakened federal protections for wetlands and waterways that help safeguard drinking water sources, filter pollution, and reduce flooding. That is why I have focused on both prevention and cleanup.
2. Water Systems — Building climate-resilient communities that can withstand flooding and extreme weather. West Michigan communities are already experiencing the impacts of climate change through more intense rainfall, flooding risks, infrastructure strain, and costly weather-related damage.
3. Clean Energy — Accelerating the clean-energy transition while creating economic opportunity. Michigan has an opportunity to lead the nation in clean-energy production and manufacturing.
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.
N/A This question does not apply to the election in which I am a candidate
While this is a state issue, I support the objective reflected in Michigan law of moving expeditiously toward a clean-energy economy. Doing so will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, strengthen our energy independence, and create economic opportunity across our state. Achieving that goal will require an all-of-the-above approach that brings together government, utilities, businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers. We should be ambitious in expanding renewable energy while ensuring the transition remains reliable, affordable, and practical for Michigan communities.
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?
Michigan should welcome innovation and the economic opportunities that data centers can bring while establishing strong guardrails so communities are not left to bear the costs. As Michigan evaluates large-scale data center development, clear standards should govern energy and water use, strong ratepayer protections should be required, and full transparency should be in place so communities understand the impacts before projects move forward. These facilities place significant demands on local infrastructure, and approvals should make clear that costs are not shifted onto residential ratepayers and that water and energy systems are not overburdened.
If we can innovate in AI, we can also innovate in how we protect water resources, manage energy demand, and reduce environmental impacts. Policymakers must incentivize innovation that reduces environmental impacts of data centers, including closed-loop water systems, advanced cooling technologies, and clean-energy solutions that minimize strain on local infrastructure. At the federal level, my service on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee includes working on legislation like the Water Resources Development Act, where I will continue pushing to address the pressures created by growing industrial demand on the long-term reliability and quality of water systems communities depend on.
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 establishing enforceable, science-based federal drinking water standards for PFAS paired with sustained funding to help communities meet those standards and clean up existing contamination.
PFAS contamination in drinking water, groundwater, and surface water is one of the most urgent public health challenges facing Michigan communities. Clear national limits provide consistency across states and give utilities the certainty needed to plan treatment and cleanup investments.
Much of my work in Congress has focused on keeping PFAS out of drinking water and strengthening the federal response. As Vice Ranking Member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I have worked on legislation addressing emerging contaminants and protecting the Great Lakes. I introduced the bipartisan PURE Water Act to support municipal water systems in removing PFAS from drinking water. I also secured funding through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for Gerald R. Ford Airport to test PFAS destruction technologies, and I serve on the Congressional PFAS Task Force focused on coordinated federal action.
Moving from fragmented response to enforceable national standards backed by real resources is the most effective way to protect public health and restore contaminated water systems.
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
Permitting decisions should account for the cumulative environmental and public health impacts on communities that are already overburdened by pollution. No community should be asked to absorb additional harm without a full understanding of existing exposures and impacts.
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?
Utility rate decisions have a direct impact on families across Michigan, and there is a strong public interest in transparency, accountability, and affordability in how those decisions are made. No family should have to choose between putting food on the table and keeping the lights on. As costs continue to rise, oversight of utility rate cases should reflect the need to protect ratepayers while maintaining reliable and modern energy infrastructure.
I recently joined Moms Demand Action for a press conference highlighting the Energy Bills Relief Act and its goals of lowering costs for ratepayers, strengthening energy infrastructure, and expanding clean energy investments that can help reduce long-term energy costs while protecting public health.
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?
The Straits of Mackinac are one of the most sensitive and economically vital waterways in the country, and any infrastructure carrying materials through that area must be evaluated through the lens of risk, long-term safety, and protection of the Great Lakes. The guiding principle should be preventing catastrophic harm to drinking water, ecosystems, and regional economies. That requires prioritizing safer alternatives, rigorous oversight, and a clear-eyed assessment of whether continued operation of infrastructure in the Straits is consistent with protecting Michigan’s water resources and tribal and coastal communities. I have supported efforts to strengthen safety and accountability for pipeline infrastructure, including leading an amendment in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to improve oversight and response measures in the event of a pipeline failure.
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?
Access to clean, affordable drinking water is essential, and rising water costs combined with shutoffs are placing real strain on families across Michigan in both rural and urban communities. Strong shutoff protections and targeted assistance for low-income households should be part of any approach to ensuring water remains accessible, along with policies that address the root causes of rising costs, including aging infrastructure, contamination cleanup, and the financial pressures placed on local utilities.
As Vice Ranking Member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee and a member of the PFAS Task Force, much of my work has focused on strengthening water infrastructure and strengthen access to safe drinking water for our communities. Long-term affordability will depend on continued investment in infrastructure, fair rate structures, and policies that prevent the cost of necessary upgrades from falling disproportionately on individual households.
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
Those responsible for pollution should be held accountable for cleaning up contaminated sites, not taxpayers or local communities. Michigan has thousands of contaminated sites, and effective environmental policy must be rooted in the principle that polluters—not the public—bear the cost of remediation.
I have worked in Congress to strengthen pollution prevention and management programs in a bipartisan way, with the goal of improving how contamination is addressed and preventing future harm. Strengthening accountability for cleanup is essential to protecting public health, restoring land and water resources, and reducing the long-term financial burden on Michigan families and communities.