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 — Groundwater, wetlands, and our lakes has to come first. Aging infrastructure, PFAS and other contamination, and increasingly severe storms all threaten both public health and household costs. I would prioritize infrastructure investment, strong polluter accountability, and protection of the wetlands and natural systems that help prevent flooding.
2. Utility Accountability — Reliable, affordable, and cleaner energy. Michigan families are paying too much for electricity while experiencing too many outages. I would push for stronger utility accountability, grid modernization, weatherization, community solar, and clean-energy investments that lower bills while improving reliability and reducing pollution.
3. Data Centers — Responsible development that protects communities and natural resources. Our communities are growing, but development should not come at the expense of water supplies, green space, or residents' quality of life. That includes strong local control and environmental guardrails for major developments such as data centers, protection of wetlands and habitat, and making sure large industrial users pay the full cost of the infrastructure and resources they require.
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.
I support maintaining Michigan’s 100% clean energy standard.
The transition should be implemented in a way that protects reliability, keeps costs affordable for families, and creates good-paying Michigan jobs. That means investing in grid modernization, energy storage, efficiency, and a diverse mix of clean energy resources while holding utilities accountable for both rates and service.
I would absolutely not support repealing the law. Michigan should be moving toward cleaner, more reliable energy, not backward. At the same time, lawmakers need to make sure the transition is practical and that working families are not asked to shoulder unreasonable costs.
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 establish clear, enforceable standards for large-scale data centers rather than leaving individual communities to negotiate these highly complex projects on their own.
I would support legislation requiring transparency about projected water and electricity use, independent analysis of impacts on utility rates and grid reliability, protections against excessive noise, strong environmental and water-use standards, and meaningful disclosure of the number and quality of jobs a project will actually create. Data centers should also pay the full cost of the grid, water, and other infrastructure capacity their projects require so those costs are not shifted onto residents and small businesses.
Just as importantly, local communities must retain a meaningful voice in whether these projects are appropriate for them. State policy should establish a strong floor of protections, not override local decision-making or force communities to accept developments they do not want.
Michigan should not race other states to the bottom by offering enormous incentives without understanding the long-term costs. If data centers are going to receive favorable tax treatment, those incentives should be conditioned on measurable public benefits, environmental protections, responsible water and energy use, and strong community standards.
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 PFAS cleanup at contaminated sites and make the companies responsible for that contamination pay for it.
Michigan has already identified the problem in many communities; residents should not have to wait years for remediation while contamination remains in drinking water, groundwater, and surface water. I would support stronger Polluter Pay laws, adequate funding and staffing for EGLE, and clear cleanup timelines so responsible parties cannot delay action indefinitely.
When PFAS threatens a community’s water, protecting public health has to come before protecting a polluter’s bottom line.
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. Michigan regulators should consider the cumulative environmental and health burdens a community is already carrying before approving additional sources of pollution.
A permit should not be evaluated in isolation if residents are already dealing with multiple industrial facilities, poor air quality, contaminated water, or other environmental hazards. I support requiring EGLE to assess those cumulative impacts, consider public health data, and give meaningful weight to community input before issuing new permits.
Environmental protection should not depend on a ZIP code. Communities that have historically borne a disproportionate share of pollution deserve stronger safeguards against additional harm, not another permit that ignores what is already happening around them.
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 have a responsibility to make sure utility companies are accountable to the people who pay their bills.
I support stronger oversight of rate increase requests, greater transparency around how utilities spend customer dollars, and tougher scrutiny of whether proposed increases are actually tied to improvements in reliability, grid modernization, and customer service. Utilities should not be able to repeatedly raise rates while families continue to experience frequent outages and poor service.
I would also support strengthening consumer representation in rate cases and requiring clearer performance standards so utilities are held accountable for both affordability and reliability. Michigan families should not be asked to pay more without seeing measurable improvements in return.
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 pipelines should not continue operating indefinitely on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac. The Great Lakes are too important to Michigan’s economy, drinking water, and way of life to accept the risk of a catastrophic spill.
I support Michigan’s authority to protect the Great Lakes and to require Enbridge to meet the strongest possible environmental and safety standards. Any proposed replacement or tunnel must undergo rigorous, independent review of its environmental impacts, safety, long-term need, and effects on Tribal rights and the Great Lakes. Approval of a tunnel should never become an excuse to allow the existing lakebed pipelines to operate indefinitely.
My guiding principle is simple: protecting the Great Lakes must come first. Enbridge should bear the full cost and responsibility for safely addressing Line 5, and Michigan taxpayers should not be left carrying the financial or environmental risk.
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 legislation that makes water more affordable for low-income households and provides stronger protections against shutoffs.
Access to safe drinking water is a basic necessity, and families should not lose that access simply because they are struggling financially. I would support income-based affordability programs, reasonable caps on water bills for qualifying households, flexible payment plans, and shutoff protections for vulnerable residents.
At the same time, the state should help communities address aging water infrastructure so affordability programs do not simply shift unsustainable costs onto local governments. We need a long-term approach that keeps water affordable for families while ensuring communities have the resources to maintain safe, reliable 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?
I strongly support legislation to hold polluters financially responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.
Michigan taxpayers should not be left paying to clean up pollution caused by private companies. A strong Polluter Pay law would restore accountability, help communities address long-standing contamination, and ensure that the companies responsible for environmental damage bear the cost of remediation.
With thousands of contaminated sites across Michigan, we need a system that prioritizes cleanup, protects public health and drinking water, and prevents polluters from walking away while residents and local governments are left with the consequences.
Data center proposals have multiplied across Michigan since the spring, and it is by far the most common topic readers have asked candidates about. Would you support a pause on new hyperscale data center approvals until state guardrails on water use, noise, utility rate impacts, and local approval are in place? Please explain, including whether data centers should keep their state tax breaks, whether local communities should be able to reject them, and whether they should pay the full cost of the grid and water capacity they require.
Yes. I would support a pause on new hyperscale data center approvals until Michigan has strong, enforceable guardrails in place.
Communities should know exactly how much water and electricity these facilities will use, what impact they will have on residential utility rates and local infrastructure, and how noise and other quality-of-life concerns will be addressed before a project moves forward. Local governments and residents must also have a meaningful voice, including the ability to reject projects that are not right for their community.
I also do not believe Michigan taxpayers or utility customers should subsidize enormously resource-intensive developments without a clear public benefit. Any tax incentives should be reevaluated and tied to strict standards for job creation, environmental protection, transparency, and community benefit. Data centers should pay the full cost of the new grid, water, and other infrastructure capacity their projects require rather than shifting those costs onto families and small businesses.
Michigan can welcome economic development without giving corporations a blank check. We need clear statewide rules that protect our water, our communities, and our ratepayers first.
Communities near heavy industry see frequent air quality alerts, wildfire smoke now adds unhealthy-air days statewide, and EGLE has limited staff to inspect facilities and enforce permits. Do you support stronger air pollution enforcement, such as higher penalties for repeat violators or emission limits on unhealthy-air days? What specifically would you do to protect vulnerable residents, including those in the most polluted zip codes, on those days?
Yes. Michigan should strengthen enforcement against repeat polluters, including higher penalties when companies repeatedly violate permits, and EGLE must have the staffing and resources necessary to inspect facilities and enforce the law.
On unhealthy-air days, I support additional protections in communities already carrying the greatest pollution burden, including tighter temporary emissions limits where appropriate, stronger public notification, and clear guidance for schools, senior facilities, outdoor workers, and families with children or respiratory conditions. I would also support directing more air-quality monitoring and enforcement resources to the most polluted zip codes so the communities facing the highest risks receive the greatest protection.
No Michigan community should be treated as a sacrifice zone simply because it has historically hosted more heavy industry.
Michigan is already seeing more extreme heat, storms, and flooding, and households pay some of the highest electric rates in the Midwest for some of the least reliable service. What specific steps would you take in your first term toward the MI Healthy Climate Plan goals, and would you support community solar and expanded weatherization so residents can own or share in clean power and lower their bills?
Yes. In my first term, I would focus on the parts of the MI Healthy Climate Plan that can deliver the clearest benefits to families: improving grid reliability, expanding energy efficiency and weatherization, accelerating clean-energy deployment, and making sure the transition lowers costs rather than shifting them onto ratepayers.
I support community solar because residents should have the opportunity to benefit from clean energy even if they cannot install panels on their own roof. I also support significantly expanding weatherization and efficiency programs, especially for older homes and lower-income households, because reducing energy waste is one of the fastest ways to lower utility bills.
I would also push for stronger utility accountability and greater investment in grid modernization, storm resilience, and distributed energy so Michigan families are not paying some of the highest rates in the region for unreliable service. Our climate and energy policies should be measured not only by emissions reductions, but by whether families see lower bills, fewer outages, and more control over where their energy comes from.
Federal cuts to EPA staffing, enforcement, and Great Lakes funding are shifting responsibility for air, water, and public health protection to the states. Should Michigan backfill that funding and enforcement, and how would you pay for it? What would you do to make Michigan's own environmental protections durable against future rollbacks?
Yes. If federal cuts leave Michigan without the resources necessary to protect our air, drinking water, and Great Lakes, I believe the state has a responsibility to fill critical gaps in enforcement and monitoring.
I would prioritize funding EGLE adequately through the state budget, while also requiring polluters and regulated industries to bear more of the cost of permitting, cleanup, and enforcement rather than shifting those costs onto taxpayers. I also support strong “polluter pays” policies so companies responsible for contamination are held financially accountable for cleaning it up.
To make Michigan’s protections more durable, I would work to put key environmental safeguards into state law rather than relying only on administrative rules that can be weakened by a future administration. That includes strong protections for drinking water, PFAS and other toxic contamination, air quality, wetlands, and the Great Lakes, along with reliable funding for enforcement.
Protecting Michigan’s environment should not depend on which party controls Washington—or Lansing. These protections should be strong, enforceable, and built to last.
Michigan's forests, wetlands, and public lands support clean water, wildlife, outdoor recreation, and flood protection, yet the DNR estimates nearly a billion dollars in backlogged capital needs. What are your top priorities for protecting these lands over the next term, including wetland and floodplain protection, groundwater withdrawals by bottlers, and native habitat, and how would you fund them?
My top priorities would be protecting wetlands and floodplains, safeguarding groundwater, restoring native habitat, and making sure Michigan adequately maintains the public lands we already own.
Wetlands and floodplains are critical infrastructure. They absorb stormwater, reduce flooding, protect drinking water, and provide wildlife habitat, so I would oppose efforts to weaken protections or make it easier to destroy them. I also support stronger oversight of large groundwater withdrawals, including commercial bottling operations, to ensure private use does not threaten aquifers, lakes, streams, or nearby communities.
I would prioritize restoration of native forests, wetlands, pollinator habitat, and invasive-species control, while also addressing the DNR’s significant backlog of deferred maintenance so our parks, trails, and public lands remain safe and accessible.
Funding should come from a combination of sustained General Fund investment, dedicated conservation and recreation funding, federal matching dollars when available, and appropriate fees paid by commercial users of Michigan’s natural resources. Protecting public lands should be treated as a long-term investment in clean water, flood resilience, tourism, and quality of life—not as an optional expense.