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. Climate — Utility accountability and clean energy implementation Michigan's 2023 Clean Energy and Jobs Act set a 100% clean energy standard by 2040 and gave the MPSC new authority to weigh climate and environmental justice in utility planning.
2. Air Quality — Closing false solution loopholes Carbon capture and storage is the fossil fuel industry's most aggressive current play to extend the life of fossil infrastructure under a climate-friendly label. With billions in federal tax credits now available, Michigan will see CCS project proposals whether we are ready for them or not. Right now, we are not ready.
3. Clean Drinking Water — Water protection Michigan's greatest asset is its water, and it is under threat from multiple directions simultaneously. PFAS contamination has spread through drinking water supplies across the state. Failing septic systems are polluting groundwater and surface water in ways we are only beginning to quantify.
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
Strong implementation of the Clean Energy and Jobs Act has been a top priority for me since voting for it. I have opposed every rollback attempt, and I am actively working with my colleagues and key environmental partners to close loopholes and expand on what we did in 2023.
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?
Data centers represent massive, concentrated load growth that directly affects ratepayer costs, grid reliability, water resources, and our ability to meet the clean energy standards Michigan just fought to establish. The pressure to expedite siting is real, and I understand the economic development and labor arguments. But approving that load without meaningful conditions is how the clean energy transition gets quietly undermined.
My position is a matter of record. I voted against a Democratic-sponsored data center tax incentive package because it provided sales and use tax exemptions running through 2050 with no enforceable environmental protections in return. The package contained no mandatory renewable energy procurement, no enforceable water use limits, no prevailing wage requirements, no community benefits agreements, and no environmental justice review. These are among the most profitable companies in the world. They do not need Michigan taxpayers subsidizing their infrastructure costs for 25 years in exchange for nothing enforceable.
Community engagement has to be more than a checkbox. Affected communities, especially those already disproportionately burdened by pollution, should have a meaningful voice before siting decisions are made, not after. That means early, accessible public participation processes with real decision-making weight, not pro forma comment periods that get ignored. That’s why I joined many of my colleagues in signing a letter calling for proper public comment when a massive data center project was being considered in Saline. By cutting residents out of the decision-making, we not only get worse outcomes for our environment but we also damage faith in our democratic process and the sense that our government works for the people, not special interests.
The conditions I believe should be required before any large data center project moves forward are straightforward: mandatory renewable energy procurement with third-party verification; transparent grid cost accounting so ratepayers aren't absorbing infrastructure costs that should fall on the developer; rigorous water use disclosure and enforceable limits; prevailing wage and local hiring requirements; enforceable community benefits agreements; and environmental justice review before siting approval.
Michigan can welcome data center investment on terms that protect our communities, our ratepayers, and our clean energy future. What we cannot do is hand out subsidies and approvals in exchange for promises.
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?
In addition to funding EGLE to facilitate studies measuring the extent of PFAS contamination, including PFAS testing of sewage sludge, we need to empower state and local governments to hold polluters accountable. I am co-sponsor and strong advocate for legislation that extends the statute of limitations on pollution penalties; we need a polluter-pay framework that requires responsible parties to fund cleanup rather than shifting those costs onto taxpayers.
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
Historically marginalized communities have borne the greatest burden of environmental harm, from higher exposure to air pollution and contaminated water to greater vulnerability to flooding, heat, and other climate impacts. In addition to advocating for more state investment in these areas, I am a co-sponsor of House Bill 4742 of 2025, which would prohibit permitting of facilities that carry environmental risks in overburdened communities without an environmental review and public comment and would require EGLE to study and maintain a list of such communities.
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. I believe that the legislature has a critical role to play in holding utility companies accountable, which is why I have proudly signed the No Utility Money pledge and have publicly supported the MOP Up Michigan ballot initiative.
The current structure is the problem. Michigan ratepayers are captive customers of two monopoly utilities that have spent decades shaping the regulatory and political environment they're supposed to operate within. DTE and Consumers Energy deliver some of the worst reliability outcomes in the Midwest while charging some of the highest rates and returning regularly to the MPSC for more. That's a predictable outcome when the regulated can spend freely to influence the regulators and the legislators who oversee them. The distributed generation cap is a perfect example. DTE has used the cap to limit rooftop and community solar adoption, rationing clean energy access to protect the monopoly that has the most to lose from it.
The reforms I support are straightforward: utilities should have to demonstrate verified improvements in reliability before they're permitted to raise rates; ratepayers should receive fair compensation when outages occur so the cost of utility failure falls on the utility, not the family whose food spoiled or whose heat went out in January; ratepayer money should not be funding CEO bonuses or lobbying campaigns against the very consumer protections we're trying to pass; and the distributed generation cap should be removed so that rooftop and community solar can expand without monopoly obstruction.
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 existing Line 5 crossing is an unacceptable risk. An aging pipeline running through the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac, in one of the most ecologically sensitive freshwater environments on the planet, should not still be operating under an easement the state has moved to revoke. A spill at the Straits would be catastrophic and essentially uncontainable.
The tunnel proposal is a genuinely different question, and I think it deserves to be engaged with honestly rather than collapsed into a defense of the existing infrastructure. A new pipeline housed in bedrock beneath the lakebed does address the most acute environmental concern about the current crossing. But it also locks in fossil fuel infrastructure for decades at a moment when our 2023 clean energy package sets a binding path to 100% clean electricity by 2040. The energy reliability rationale also deserves scrutiny: the propane Line 5 carries could increasingly be met through electrification and efficiency investments as our clean energy transition proceeds. Before committing to decades of additional fossil fuel infrastructure, we should be asking whether that's the right long-term investment or whether the resources, and political capital, are better directed at accelerating the transition that makes it unnecessary.
The energy reliability question is legitimate, especially for communities in the Upper Peninsula that depend on the propane that Line 5 delivers. Those communities deserve a credible transition plan, not just an abrupt disruption. The answer to that is a serious electrification and weatherization investment strategy, not indefinite operation of infrastructure that poses an irreversible threat to the Great Lakes.
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?
Safe, affordable drinking water is a basic human right, and I believe Michigan has a responsibility to ensure every resident has access to clean and affordable water.
That’s why I’m proud to be a co-sponsor of the Water Affordability Now package, which would establish a statewide water affordability program so that water bills are tied to a household’s ability to pay. Under this approach, low-income households would have their water bills capped at a small percentage of their income and would be eligible for assistance and debt relief, ensuring families are not forced to choose between paying for water and meeting other basic needs.
The package also includes strong protections against water shutoffs. It would prevent shutoffs for households enrolled in the affordability program and for vulnerable residents, including seniors, children, pregnant residents, and people with serious medical conditions. It also protects tenants from losing water service because of a landlord’s failure to pay the bill.
In addition to affordability protections, I support continued state investment in drinking water infrastructure: replacing lead service lines, upgrading aging systems, and ensuring strong water quality monitoring and enforcement. Every Michigan community should be able to rely on safe drinking water.
Access to clean, safe water is essential for public health, dignity, and economic security. In the senate, I will continue supporting policies that recognize water as a basic necessity and ensure every Michigan household can afford it.
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 am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of legislation to hold polluters accountable. Our Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy has made real progress at cleaning up contaminated sites across our state, but the burden for funding those clean-up efforts must fall on the polluters responsible, not on the taxpayers who are exposed to the contamination. In addition to holding polluters responsible, as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on EGLE, I have used my role to push back on dramatic cuts to EGLE funding and to advocate for increasing tipping fees to fund the department's essential work.