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 — Is a fundamental right. Michigan has more than 180 known PFAS contamination sites, and communities should never have to worry about whether the water coming from their tap is safe. Protecting public health requires continued investment in water infrastructure, aggressive cleanup efforts, and holding polluters accountable.
2. Climate — Resilience Michigan must continue transitioning to cleaner energy sources while ensuring reliability, affordability, and good-paying jobs. Investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and modernizing the electric grid will help reduce emissions, strengthen our economy, and better prepare communities for increasingly severe weather events.
3. Clean Drinking Water — Agricultural runoff and water quality Nutrient pollution from agricultural runoff contributes to harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie and other waterways, threatening drinking water, public health, recreation, and local economies. Supporting conservation practices and partnering with farmers can help reduce pollution while maintaining a strong agricultural sector.
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
Michigan's transition to 100% clean energy by 2040 is an important goal for protecting public health, reducing pollution, and positioning our state to compete in the growing clean energy economy. Maintaining a clear, long-term timeline gives utilities, businesses, and workers the certainty they need to plan investments and create jobs. At the same time, implementation must be practical and fiscally responsible. Energy must remain reliable and affordable for families, seniors, and small businesses. Progress should be measured by results, with strong oversight to ensure ratepayers are receiving value for their investment and that workers and communities affected by the transition are not left behind. The focus should be on expanding clean energy, modernizing the grid, improving energy efficiency, and lowering long-term costs, not on rolling back goals that provide economic and environmental benefits for Michigan.
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 can compete for data center investment, but not at the expense of residents, taxpayers, or our natural resources. Data centers can bring jobs and economic growth, but they must be developed responsibly and with strong public oversight. The state should establish clear guardrails:
No hidden costs for families — Ratepayers should not be forced to subsidize infrastructure built primarily to serve large corporations. Data centers should pay the full cost of the energy and infrastructure they require.
Accountability for incentives — Any tax incentives should be tied to enforceable standards for job creation, local hiring, environmental stewardship, and community benefits.
Protect water and grid reliability — Projects should be required to demonstrate that they will not strain local water supplies, increase costs for existing customers, or jeopardize electric reliability for residents and small businesses.
Transparency and local control — Communities deserve clear information about proposed projects and a meaningful voice in the approval process. Local governments and residents should be partners in these decisions, not bystanders. Michigan should welcome responsible investment, but growth must be balanced with protecting our communities, infrastructure, and quality of life.
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 ensure that Michigan's PFAS drinking water standards are fully enforced and backed by dedicated funding for testing, filtration, and cleanup.
Michigan has led the nation in addressing PFAS contamination, but too many communities still face barriers to remediation because the costs are simply too high. Strong standards only work if local governments and water systems have the resources to meet them.
The state should provide stable funding for cleanup efforts, prioritize impacted communities, and continue holding polluters accountable whenever possible. Safe drinking water is a basic public health responsibility, and no community should have to wait years for protection because it cannot afford the necessary infrastructure upgrades.
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
Regulators should consider cumulative environmental and public health impacts before approving new permits in communities that already face disproportionate pollution burdens, while maintaining a transparent, science-based process that provides certainty for residents and businesses alike.
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. While the Michigan Public Service Commission should continue to set rates independently, elected officials have a responsibility to ensure utilities are accountable to the public through strong oversight, transparent rate case proceedings, and rigorous commissioner appointments.
Utilities should be rewarded for improving reliability, affordability, and customer service—not simply for increasing infrastructure spending. Michigan families deserve a system that protects ratepayers while ensuring the investments needed for a reliable and resilient energy grid.
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 pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac poses an unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes and cannot remain in its current form indefinitely. At the same time, any solution must recognize the energy needs of Michigan residents, particularly U.P. communities that rely on propane for heating.
I support moving the pipeline into a tunnel beneath the lakebed as the safest available option while continuing to invest in long-term energy alternatives and establishing a clear timeline for decommissioning the existing line. The goal should be to protect the Great Lakes, maintain energy reliability, and reduce future dependence on fossil fuels.
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. No one should lose access to safe drinking water because they cannot afford their bill. I support income-based water affordability programs and strong shutoff protections, particularly for households with children, seniors, and individuals with serious medical needs.
These programs should be designed responsibly, with state assistance helping offset costs so the burden is not shifted onto other ratepayers or local governments. Clean water is a public health necessity, and every Michigander should be able to access it regardless of income.
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
The polluter-pays principle is common sense: taxpayers should not be left footing the bill for contamination caused by private parties. Michigan should hold responsible parties accountable for cleaning up polluted sites while ensuring the process is fair, evidence-based, and focused on protecting public health, groundwater, and local communities.