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.
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 support responsible data center development, but economic growth cannot come at the expense of our environment, communities, or ratepayers. Data centers should pay the full cost of the grid, electricity, water, and other infrastructure they require and be held accountable for their environmental impacts. I would support a temporary pause on new hyperscale approvals only if it came with a specific, publicly available workplan and timeline to establish meaningful guardrails for water use, noise, utility costs, environmental protection, and community benefits. A pause should produce solutions, not simply kick the can down the road. Local communities deserve full transparency and meaningful public participation in these decisions, including a real voice in whether projects move forward. Any state tax incentives should be tied to enforceable community and environmental benefits rather than provided automatically.
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 air pollution violations, including meaningful penalties, while ensuring EGLE has the resources needed to inspect facilities and enforce permits effectively. On unhealthy-air days, I would prioritize protecting vulnerable residents by expanding air-quality alerts and public communication, providing guidance and resources to schools, seniors, and people with respiratory conditions, and targeting enforcement in communities that already experience disproportionate pollution burdens. Clean air should be a basic expectation for every Michigan community.
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?
I would focus on practical investments that reduce emissions while lowering costs for Michigan families. That includes modernizing the electric grid, expanding energy efficiency and weatherization programs, and supporting clean energy projects that improve reliability and create good-paying Michigan jobs. I support community solar because residents should have more opportunities to benefit directly from clean energy, including renters and households that cannot install solar themselves. I would also expand weatherization assistance so families can reduce energy use and lower their bills. Climate action should be measured by results: cleaner air and water, greater reliability, and lower long-term costs for Michigan residents.
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?
Michigan should protect the core environmental programs that safeguard our drinking water, air quality, and Great Lakes, particularly when federal support is reduced. I would prioritize resources for inspection, enforcement, cleanup, and communities facing the greatest environmental risks, while pursuing federal, state, and private funding partnerships and holding polluters accountable for the costs they create. Michigan should also strengthen and maintain our environmental standards, provide stable funding for enforcement, and establish clear accountability measures so these protections remain durable regardless of changes in federal policy.
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 priorities would be protecting wetlands and floodplains, preserving native habitat, and ensuring groundwater withdrawals are sustainable. These resources protect drinking water, reduce flooding, support agriculture and tourism, and provide recreational opportunities for Michigan families. With significant backlogged needs, Michigan should prioritize investments based on environmental risk, public benefit, and available resources while still making room for new projects when they address a demonstrated priority. Funding should come from a combination of state and federal resources, grants, and appropriate user or industry fees, including ensuring large groundwater users pay their fair share. Decisions should be science-based, transparent, and focused on protecting Michigan's natural resources for future generations.