FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 18, 2025

LANSING, MI — Clean Energy Organizations denounce the Michigan Public Service Commission's (MPSC) decision today to grant ex parte approval of DTE Energy’s request to fast-track special contracts to provide electricity to a proposed data center in Saline Township – but with conditions. The data center, backed by OpenAI and Oracle, will require 1.4 gigawatts of power from the electric utility.  

The Commission opted to fast-track approval rather than move forward with a contested case, which would have allowed for additional public input and a full and more transparent review of potential impacts on electricity rates, reliability, and Michigan’s clean energy goals. While the order includes conditions intended to provide consumer protection and ratepayer benefits – including claims that DTE will bear all risk for unrecovered costs – the Commission’s assertion that it can contain all costs and charge them to specific customers is uncertain at best. 

The decision is concerning to the Ecology Center, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Vote Solar – collectively known as the Clean Energy Organizations (CEOs) – as it bypasses public scrutiny and substitutes MPSC Staff’s evaluation of an unredacted file for meaningful public review, and raises questions about whether safeguards are sufficient to protect ratepayers, communities, and Michigan’s environmental commitments. 

Lee Shaver, Senior Energy Analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "History will show that the Commission has made the wrong call here—and as fast as AI technology is moving, it won’t take long. By approving this application, the Commission failed to adequately scrutinize DTE’s claims that this data center would not harm affordability, reliability, or Michigan’s clean energy goals. While the commissioners claim that the conditions they applied to their approval will address those risks, the decision gets the order wrong: the time to ensure that Michiganders are protected is before building a city-size data center, not after.”

Alexis Blizman, Policy Director at the Ecology Center, said: "There are so many unanswered questions regarding this project which could have huge impacts on energy affordability and reliability. Despite the MPSC’s many assurances of ratepayer protection, the public deserves transparency, and the Commission chose to leave them in the dark."

Will Kenworthy, Senior Regulatory Director – Midwest for Vote Solar, said: “The Commission’s order recognizes the need to protect customers from the systemwide impacts of this unprecedented load growth, but it falls short of assuring that cost won’t be shifted onto other customers. Instead, it defers the most consequential issues to future integrated resource planning and rate proceedings— where meaningful consumer protections must ultimately be secured. The Commission now has the responsibility to ensure any adverse impacts identified in resource, transmission and distribution planning are directly translated into rate design and cost allocation decisions in rate cases—so the costs of serving data center load don’t end up on the backs of households.”

Katie Duckworth, Senior Associate Attorney with ELPC, said: “Approving this project without a contested case missed a critical opportunity to examine how such a massive new load impacts DTE’s generation portfolio and Michigan’s renewable energy goals. The proposed battery storage system could be beneficial, but it’s critical to understand what will charge those batteries – clean energy or fossil fuels. Fast-tracking approval only defers consideration of the renewable energy implications until next year’s integrated resource planning, which will only make these issues more difficult to thoughtfully address.”

###

By Yuki Nakayama, Ecology Center Writer

With the winter holiday season fast approaching, it is startling to realize that millions of tons of holiday waste are generated each year. While we are bombarded with gift guides and holiday shopping ads, the holidays do not have to be centered on consumer culture. There are plenty of ways to celebrate this time, cherishing connections and kinship instead of participating in capitalism. Here are some of my own practices and ideas, many of which are rooted in Japanese culture and customs.

Easy Handmade Gifts

One of my favorite low-cost practices in Japan is handmade gift tickets for a wide range of services. Young children commonly give these as gifts to their parents and grandparents, often as "kata tataki" (shoulder massage) tickets. These tickets let you be as simple or as artistic as you like, and they offer a fun opportunity for a family gift ticket-making session. As adults, this tradition can be a meaningful way to offer support without the pressure of asking for help, making the act of giving and receiving service truly special. It's a unique way to cherish connections, even in adulthood.

Handmade gifts can be more meaningful. For example, instead of holiday cards with generic statements, I love getting and giving letters, especially now that we live a very digital life. I like routinely rereading them. It is a nice opportunity to reflect on your relationship with the person and what they mean to you. The letters bring value that consumer goods cannot capture.

Otoshidama: A Japanese New Year Cash Gifting Tradition

In many Asian countries, there are many traditions of gifting cash, and in Japan, we have "Otoshidama" money. On New Year’s Day, kids receive a small envelope of cash from close adults to bring good fortune in the year. Money is often the most versatile and appreciated gift, which is why gift cards are so popular here in the US, too. I have never seen anyone who was disappointed about getting cash, including kids. This was one of my favorite parts of visiting extended family during the holidays for obvious reasons.

Donate In Their Name

A gift I have received that I frequently think about is a donation to an organization that plants trees in my name. It is very cool to know that my interpersonal relationships led to some trees being planted, and that those trees could be part of this planet beyond our lives. I was given this gift because this person knew that I care about the environment, like trees over flowers, and don't want more "stuff." I think about this gift a lot because it captures this person’s understanding of who I am and makes me feel seen. Such gestures not only strengthen personal bonds but also contribute positively to the world we share.

Opting Out of Holiday Gifts & Focusing on Other Moments

I often do not send winter holiday gifts to my family or friends. I also do not expect any gifts from them and have asked them not to buy anything for me. Instead, I focus on their birthdays or other life moments that have more meaning to me and the receiver of the gift. This means I have a bigger budget when I want to give, and it makes me think about what I want to cherish about my relationship with that person. Opting out of exchanging gifts is a very easy way to have a less-stuff holiday. Having a "no gift" holiday as a family takes the stress and pressure off of figuring out gifts. We've all experienced the stress of trying to get things shipped in time for specific holiday dates. It also helps to make holidays less transactional and financially sustainable for everyone involved.

Ecology Center Staff’s Less Stuff Holidays

At this point, I'd like to transition from my personal perspective to the voices of the Ecology Center staff, offering a broader view of how others celebrate a less-stuff holiday. I reached out to colleagues to learn about their practices and ideas for reducing holiday consumption while still appreciating the season's meaning.

One of the most common practices was reuse. Rachana Gone, Ecology Center Graphic Designer, shared a beautiful family tradition of using the same Christmas tree since 1999/2000. They’ve even travelled with their tree, bringing it from the U.S. to India. She said that “it becomes less about having the ‘perfect’ tree and more about honoring something that’s lasted decades and all of the memories tied to it.”

​Many people mentioned reusing gift wrapping materials. This requires some planning to save materials from the gifts you’ve received the previous year and throughout the year, but it is an excellent and easy way to make gift-giving more environmentally friendly. It’s not always possible to opt out of giving gifts, and we all have special people who make us want to show our care and love through gifts. Mary Sue Schottenfels encourages people to look around and “re-gift” things they never used or donate them to those in need. If you are not going to use it, it's better to give it to someone who will use it instead of letting it collect dust in the basement or end up in the landfill. To get started, you can create a 'reuse box.' Simply place it in a convenient spot and fill it with reusable wrapping materials and items you could re-gift.

Handmaking things was another common practice among EC staffers. Erica Bloom likes making her own holiday decorations, which can be turned into a fun family activity. I thought this was  a cool way to grow your holiday decorations over time and to imbue each one with special memories. Rachana also shared that she once made a Christmas tree using scrap wood and existing materials in the architecture studio where she worked; it was a fun office activity for the entire team.​

Ecology Center’s Environmental Health Advocate, Melissa Cooper Sargent, holds a gift exchange where the gifts must be handmade. She has made hand and lip balms in non-plastic (mental or cardboard) containers for her family. This is an interesting tradition that makes one think creatively about what the receiver would enjoy and what you’re able to make.

Ecology Center Senior Scientist, Gillian Miller, Ph.D., suggested gifting food and beverages for people and animals. Food gifts become even more sustainable and affordable if you can grow your own ingredients. If you don’t have a home garden, she suggests going to local farmers’ markets to source ingredients or to purchase birdseeds and nut balls for winter birds, homemade dog treats, dried herbs or tea mixes, local meat jerky, homemade jam, honey, and local seasonal produce (e.g., winter squashes).​

Thrifting was a popular suggestion, especially for those who do not have the time or resources to reuse or make gifts. One of the most enjoyable aspects of thrifting is the thrill of the hunt, as each trip can feel like a treasure-hunting adventure. An unexpected find can bring a sense of joy and wonder as you discover something unique and cherished. Some of my treasured gifts have been thrifted gifts from friends. I’ve received fresh flowers and a thrifted vase from a friend in case I didn't have any vases. If you do not have many thrifting options nearby, look into local “buy nothing” groups to get cool items for free.​

Many EC staffers also skip giving objects altogether and focus on providing fun or functional experiences, such as movie / theater tickets, gift cards, and subscriptions to museums / restaurants / hairdressers / masseuses / various classes. Kathryn Savoie recently gifted her daughter a one-year membership to a bikeshare program. These gifts are also great for family and friends who live far away. You can look up local options they can use instead of shipping something during the busiest time of the year.​

Less Stuff Holiday does not mean boring or bland. With a little creativity and intention, a handmade gift, a repurposed item, or a cherished experience can bring more meaning into our celebrations, helping create a community of inspiration and accountability.

Happy winter festivities to the EC community. We look forward to seeing you in 2026!

By Keanu Heydari, Environmental Storyteller Fellow, Rackham Graduate School 

On an ordinary morning, it feels reasonable to trust the symbols and labels on the things we buy. A parent pulls a bottle of sparkling water that proudly advertises “100% recycled plastic” from the fridge. A child drags a stuffed animal across the floor on the way out the door, its tag listing polyester as the main material. The bottle carries the familiar #1 recycling triangle that signals PET plastic and suggests something safe and responsible. The toy is made from the same PET, even though it has no recycling symbol and will never go in a curbside recycling bin.

A new peer-reviewed study co-led by the Ecology Center shows that this story is incomplete.

The study compared virgin and recycled PET and asked two basic questions: Which chemicals are present in these materials, and do those mixtures interfere with hormone receptors in laboratory tests? It found that PET beverage bottles, polyester clothing, and children’s toys commonly sold in the United States can release complex mixtures of hazardous chemicals into water under conditions that mimic everyday use. The results also show that both manufacturing and recycling of PET generate more than a dozen hazardous byproducts that were not intentionally added to the plastic.

Gillian Miller, senior scientist at the Ecology Center, described her reaction in stark terms: “I was struck by how many chemicals with known toxicity leached out of the bottles and polyester clothing and toys into just water. The amounts aren’t high enough to cause immediate health effects; instead the concern is exposure over the long term and release into waterways at points during the whole life of the plastic or textile.” Her comment underlines two points that run through the study: These are everyday products, and the exposures they create are cumulative (i.e. worse over time).

This article explains what the Ecology Center study found, why it matters for Michigan communities, and how a related Italian study supports the call for stronger protections.

PET In Everyday Life

Polyethylene terephthalate, usually called PET or PETE, appears almost everywhere. It is the clear plastic used for many disposable beverage bottles. It is the fiber that makes up much of the polyester clothing in closets and drawers. It is the stuffing inside countless pillows and plush toys that children keep close at night.

PET begins its life as fossil fuel. Oil and gas are refined into chemical feedstocks, which are transformed into pellets of plastic resin. Manufacturers melt and shape those pellets into bottles and fibers. At several stages, they blend in other compounds that help the material flow more easily, resist heat, stay clear, or meet flammability standards. None of this complexity is visible to the shopper who picks up a bottle or reaches for a fleece sweatshirt. In most cases, there is no requirement to disclose the additives or the by-products that end up in the finished product.

If PET is not a single, inert substance but a mixture of the base polymer plus additives and non-intentionally added substances which are formed during polymer production and recycling, what actually moves out of that material and into water under conditions that resemble real use and real pollution?

The Study

To answer that question, the Ecology Center designed a project around products that families actually use and discard. Staff in our Healthy Stuff Lab led the study design, selected the products, and coordinated work across several partners. Defend Our Health, the Alliance of Mission-Based Recyclers, Toronto Metropolitan University, and Wayne State University contributed scientific expertise, laboratory testing, and policy framing.

The team purchased PET beverage bottles containing water and soda from stores in Michigan and California. They also bought children’s textiles, including plush toys, pillows, and clothing, from shops and online retailers in Michigan and Oregon. For each category, they selected pairs of products: one made from virgin PET and a counterpart marketed as containing recycled PET. This design allowed the researchers to compare chemical patterns in new and recycled material rather than treating “PET” as a single undifferentiated category.

The study then followed two main paths. First, Toronto Metropolitan University researchers carried out leaching experiments using filtered lake water. Cut-up pieces of the bottles and textile products were submerged in it under controlled conditions that mimic temperature and light exposure in real lakes. After a defined period, the team analyzed the water to see which compounds had moved out of the plastic. Second, they performed solvent extractions of the bottles and textiles to draw out a broader range of substances. These extracts were analyzed for known PET additives and a variety of volatile organic compounds that have been detected by other researchers in PET. Extracts were also tested in cell-based assays that measure interference with hormone receptors.

As Ecology Center Executive Director Mike Garfield notes, the project was demanding and unusual. It required close coordination between university laboratories, a commercial laboratory, and several nongovernmental organizations that approached the problem from different vantage points. It is also the first study of its kind that relies on PET bottles and textiles purchased in the United States, under U.S. regulatory rules, rather than on samples from Europe or Asia. That distinction matters because chemical rules and manufacturing practices differ from region to region. Without data from U.S. products, claims of safety rest on incomplete evidence.

What The Researchers Found In PET Bottles And Textiles

The findings call into question the idea that PET is a simple, stable material, and highlight that PET contains hazards in line with other plastics. Across the bottles and textiles, the team identified a wide range of substances of concern. These included plastic additives designed to be present from the start, such as certain flame retardants and processing aids, and compounds that appear to result from breakdown reactions (Non Intentionally Added Substances or NIAS’s)  or contamination during manufacturing and recycling, like adhesive chemicals from labels.

The study reports twelve additives that fall into a category known as persistent, mobile, and toxic (PMTs). Chemicals in this group tend to travel easily through water and can be difficult to remove once they reach rivers and drinking water sources. The researchers also detected six organophosphate esters, which can serve as flame retardants or lubricants, and fifteen non-intentionally added substances, including solvents, monomer residues, and breakdown products. Ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane, benzaldehyde, and several other aromatic compounds appear repeatedly in the data.

Crucially, many of these substances were detected not only in solvent extracts but also in lake water that comes into contact with PET products. That means the chemicals are leaching under conditions that resemble environmental exposure. They are not locked away permanently in the plastic matrix. When bottles sit full of liquid or when polyester textiles are washed and shed fibers, compounds from inside the material can enter the water that people drink and the watersheds that communities depend on.

The study also challenges easy assumptions about the superiority of one kind of PET over another. Virgin PET and recycled PET do not share identical chemical profiles. They differ in ways that are important for policy, yet neither comes out as entirely reassuring.

Virgin PET bottles in the study tend to contain higher levels of ethylene glycol and 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane, compounds associated with the production of fresh PET resin. Recycled PET bottles, by contrast, contain benzene far more often. Benzene is a known human carcinogen. In this data set, it appears consistently in recycled PET bottles and only once in a bottle made from virgin PET. Organophosphate esters also turn up more frequently in recycled PET. The researchers point to contamination from other plastics, particularly PVC, as a likely source. When PVC or other incompatible materials slip into PET recycling streams and are processed at high temperatures, they can generate benzene and other hazardous by-products that then travel forward into new bottles made from rPET.

The differences between bottles and textiles are also revealing. Beverage bottles commonly contain ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, limonene from flavorings, and antimony, which is used as a catalyst in PET resin. Textiles and plush toys more often contain formaldehyde, toluene, styrene, and specific glycols and flame retardants. These patterns reflect different manufacturing processes and different performance goals, yet they share a common thread. In both categories, mixtures of hazardous substances are present and capable of moving into water.

For children, that pattern has clear implications. Young children sleep with stuffed animals, wear polyester pajamas, and chew on zippers, seams, and blanket corners. They also drink from PET bottles that adults assume are safe. The exposures are low level but persistent and layered onto other environmental burdens that families may face.

Signals Of Hormone Disruption

The chemical analyses tell one part of the story. Experiments on biological activity tell another. When the research team at Wayne State applied extracts from PET bottles and textiles to living cells, they saw consistent evidence of interference with hormone receptors in the cells.

The mixtures drawn from PET products affected receptors for estrogens, androgens, thyroid, and other hormones in the cells. These effects appeared in extracts from virgin and recycled PET and in samples taken from both bottles and textiles. The patterns varied in strength, but there was no clear case that any one subset of PET products could be treated as hormonally benign.

It is important to acknowledge what these bioassays do and do not show. They are in vitro tests, not clinical studies of disease. They cannot demonstrate that a particular bottle will cause a particular health outcome in a particular person. They do, however, show that the real mixtures of substances leaching from PET can interfere with hormone activity at levels detectable in the laboratory.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are well known to have effects at very low doses, especially during pregnancy and early childhood, when hormonal signals help to guide organ formation, brain development, and metabolic programming. A cautious reading of the Ecology Center study therefore sees these bioassay results as an early-warning signal rather than a negligible curiosity. When materials that touch food, skin, and children’s mouths carry mixtures that block hormone receptors in vitro, it is reasonable to ask why the regulatory system treats these plastics as inherently safe.

Why This Matters For Michigan People And Waters

The Ecology Center team used filtered lake water in its leaching experiments for a reason. PET waste does not vanish when it leaves the curb. Fibers and fragments enter storm drains and rivers. Washing machines send polyester microfibers, along with attached chemicals, to wastewater plants, which are not designed to capture every small particle or every dissolved compound. From there, contaminants can reach surface waters, including the Great Lakes.

The category of persistent, mobile, and toxic additives is especially troubling in this context. Chemicals that dissolve readily in water and travel long distances are difficult to control once they leave the product. Water utilities can filter out some contaminants, but not all. Communities that already live with aging infrastructure and limited resources face the greatest challenges in addressing new waves of pollution.

The burden of PET production and disposal also falls unevenly. Defend Our Health’s “Hidden Hazards” research maps PET resin plants and the chemical facilities that supply them and shows that many are clustered in the Gulf Coast and southeastern United States in communities where residents are more likely to be people of color and have lower incomes than the national average. These plants release hazardous pollutants such as ethylene oxide and 1,4-dioxane to air and water, and mechanical recycling of PET bottles can generate benzene and styrene that migrate into new products. Workers inside these facilities and neighbors downwind or downstream face cumulative exposures from multiple industrial sources. The Ecology Center reads the PET findings through this lens of environmental justice: a plastic system that markets convenience to some households concentrates health risks and cleanup costs on others.

For a state defined by fresh water, these questions are not abstract. The same lakes that draw visitors and anchor local economies can serve as sinks for plastic fibers and chemically loaded additives. The longer petrochemical plastics dominate packaging, clothing, and toys, the more difficult it becomes to separate commerce from contamination.

How A Related Italian Study Fits In

The Emerging Investigator article led by the Ecology Center stands at the center of this discussion. It draws on U.S. products, connects chemical profiles to endocrine activity, and frames the findings in terms of environmental and human health. At the same time, it does not exist in isolation. Other researchers are beginning to see similar patterns.

A recent study from Italy by Di Duca and colleagues examined recycled PET flakes, granules, and preforms used for food packaging. The Italian team found that recycled PET samples contained higher concentrations of volatile organic compounds and phthalate esters than virgin PET. They also observed that contamination tended to increase as material moved through the recycling process toward bottle preforms. Ethylene glycol, 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane, benzaldehyde, benzene, and several phthalates appeared frequently in their data.

The details of the Italian work differ from the Ecology Center project, but the broad message is consistent: mechanical recycling systems that rely on mixed plastic streams tend to carry non-intentionally added substances forward, and in some cases they may amplify those contaminants rather than reduce them. Without effective decontamination and strict control of input materials, recycled PET is likely to contain new chemical hazards beyond what is present in the original plastic.

Together, the two studies point to a structural problem rather than an isolated glitch: a recycling policy that celebrates recycled content in PET bottles without confronting the virgin plastics’ inherent chemical hazards is also creating a contamination problem within the global plastic waste issue.

Rethinking PET, Recycling, And Responsibility

The Ecology Center does not argue that recycling should stop. The study instead questions a narrow vision of sustainability that treats recycled content as a sufficient badge of virtue. If recycled PET carries benzene and other hazardous contaminants more often than virgin PET, and if both forms carry mixtures that interfere with hormone receptors in vitro, then the label “100% recycled” deserves more scrutiny than it currently receives. 

Finally, both studies show the unavoidable presence of PET production degradation products (NIASs) in both virgin PET and rPET. This illustrates that PET, similar to other plastics, has inherent hazards. This commonality of the hazards calls for broader regulatory approaches that address these complex chemical mixtures and reduce production of petrochemical plastics in the first place.

Gillian Miller puts the larger picture bluntly. “There are many good reasons to stop using so much petrochemical plastic for packaging, clothing, and toys. From fracking chemicals getting into water supplies to wildlife bellies full of plastic to the leachable chemicals our new study found, it is all just making profits for a few large corporations while leaving a global mess.” Her comment threads together extraction, wildlife harm, and chemical leaching in a way that raises a basic question: who benefits from this system, and who lives with its consequences?

For policymakers, the study points toward several directions. Policy makers should enact protections that address the problems of mixtures, non-intentionally added substances, and endocrine activity in PET and other plastics. Rules that encourage recycled content should be paired with strict limits on contaminants, including an outright ban on PVC and other incompatible plastics that feed benzene formation. For companies that make beverages and children’s products, sustainability claims should rest on genuine chemical safety, not only on the presence of recycled resin.

For Michigan residents and Ecology Center members, the study offers both cause for concern and grounds for action. Households can reduce reliance on bottled water where safe tap water and good filters are available, shift toward glass or stainless-steel containers, and pay attention to how often synthetic clothing goes into the wash. These steps cannot replace systemic reform, but they can lower individual exposure and signal demand for safer options.

More importantly, members can help turn this science into policy. That can mean contacting legislators, speaking with school boards and child-care providers about purchasing policies, supporting bottle bills and reuse programs, and backing campaigns that push for safer materials and stronger chemical protections. It can also mean supporting the Ecology Center’s own work, which depends on member contributions to fund independent testing, policy analysis, and coalition building.

The study’s message is clear. Our bottles, clothes, and toys can carry hidden chemical burdens that move into our water, our bodies, and our ecosystems. Changing that reality will require pressure on regulators and elected officials, and it will require a shift in how we think about plastic in the first place.

Sources Cited

• Li, Y., Fries, E., Miller, G. Z., Gearhart, J., McGrail, D., Kassotis, C. D., and Sühring, R. “Emerging investigator series: Unpacking PET: comparative analysis of leachable and extractable contaminants from virgin and recycled polyethylene terephthalate bottles and textiles.” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts (2025). DOI: 10.1039/D5EM00615E.
• Ecology Center. “Unpacking PET: Comparative Analysis of Leachable and Extractable Contaminants From Virgin and Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles and Textiles.” Member-facing summary, 23 October 2025.
• Di Duca, F., Montuori, P., De Rosa, E., and collaborators. “Occurrence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and phthalate acid esters (PAEs) in recycled PET: implications for food packaging materials.” Journal of Chromatography A 1763 (2025): 466433. DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2025.466433.
• Defend Our Health. “Problem Plastic: How PET Beverage Bottles Threaten Health.” Report and executive summary, 2022.
• Defend Our Health and Beyond Petrochemicals. “Hidden Hazards: The Chemical Footprint of a Plastic Bottle.” Report, May 2023.

LANSING, MI — The Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs coalition responded today to a series of moves by Republican lawmakers that threaten to roll back Michigan’s progress on clean energy, affordability, and community resilience. Speaker Matt Hall’s sudden halt of $645 million in already approved state funding, a maneuver used only once before in Michigan’s history, is now paired with legislative efforts to weaken the state’s clean energy laws. These actions would raise costs for families, undermine grid reliability, harm human health, and stall projects that residents across Michigan depend on. 

The funding freeze blocks critical dollars for grid upgrades, solar and storage expansion, weatherization, and clean energy programs that lower costs for rural communities, low-income neighborhoods, and Black and Brown communities that already face higher outage frequency and longer restoration times. It also pauses critical food and housing assistance that many families rely on, placing both households and essential infrastructure at immediate risk.

“Clean energy rollbacks have direct health consequences,” said Kathleen Slonager, RN, AE-C, Executive Director of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Michigan Chapter. “A recent NYU study showed pediatric ER visits for asthma dropped by 41% in the month after a coal facility closed. Extending the operation of similar plants or fossil fuel dependent facilities will reverse that progress by worsening air quality and intensifying climate driven conditions known to trigger asthma attacks and other serious health crises for medically vulnerable residents, including communities across Michigan.”

Clean energy experts and environmental justice advocates warn that stalling these funds will hit the communities already carrying the heaviest burdens including places like Detroit, Benton Harbor, and Flint. Using this provision as a negotiation tactic between lawmakers slows progress on resilience hubs, solar and storage projects, and weatherization efforts that cut energy bills for vulnerable households. It drives up costs for families and businesses already facing rising rates and more frequent outages as extreme weather worsens.

Coalition members said this move also leaves the state’s most impacted residents at greater risk and creates instability for local governments and community organizations that have already budgeted for this approved funding. These organizations are often the frontline responders during outages and emergencies, providing cooling centers, essential supplies, and safety checks to vulnerable residents and seniors. Sudden funding reversals weaken that capacity at a time Michigan communities need it most.

“Michigan cannot afford political maneuvers that make energy more expensive, less reliable, and harder to access,” Denise Keele, Executive Director, Michigan Climate Action Network said. “We urge lawmakers to reject these harmful cuts and ensure that every dollar supporting clean energy, community infrastructure, and essential household needs is restored.”

This setback comes alongside the attempts to weaken Michigan’s clean energy progress through House bills HB 4007 and HB 4283 and Senate bill SB 727. These proposals would grant unnecessary extensions to a RICE generator in the Upper Peninsula and broaden the definition of “clean energy” to include methane gas generators. Together, the bills would shift costs from a major industrial user onto families and small businesses and undermine the clean energy law that is already delivering more affordable, reliable power.

Members of the coalition plan to work closely with legislative leaders to defend the state’s progress on affordability, grid modernization, and a cleaner, more reliable energy future. They point to the growing push to roll back Michigan’s clean energy laws and advance proposals as part of a broader effort that would make energy more expensive, less reliable, and undermine the progress the state has already made.

“Families should not be collateral damage in a political power struggle,” said Alexis Blizman, Policy Director, Ecology Center. “Michigan leaders must protect the programs that keep the lights on, put food on the table, and safeguard the health of communities where asthma and respiratory problems are high. Gutting these investments will drive up energy costs, weaken reliability, and leave households even more vulnerable at a time when they can least afford it.”

“We cannot afford to undermine the bipartisan progress we’ve made toward stronger stewardship and resilience”, said Zoe Zeerip, Program Coordinator for the Great Lakes Business Network. “Slashing investment in climate mitigation and clean energy adoption hurts our economy and environment. In order to address the climate crisis, protect our environment, and build a resilient future for our business communities, we must protect investments in clean energy.”

# # #

The Ecology Center is a member of the Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs coalition. 

Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs is a coalition of business leaders, clean energy companies, consumer advocates, and community organizations working to secure affordable, reliable, equitable energy access while creating jobs and investment across Michigan. 

By Keanu Heydari, Environmental Storyteller Fellow, Rackham Graduate School 

The University of Michigan’s proposed high-performance computing facility in Ypsilanti Township has become a central focus of debate about the environmental impact of artificial intelligence and the responsibilities of public institutions. The $1.25 billion project, developed with Los Alamos National Laboratory, would house powerful supercomputers used for energy modeling, AI research, and national security work. For many residents, the facility represents technological ambition as well as an uncertain environmental future.

A Facility with Heavy Demands

The Michigan Strategic Fund’s project materials describe a complex that will require more than 100 megawatts of power and a new DTE Energy substation, enough electricity to serve tens of thousands of homes. The University has committed to building an all-electric facility that will not draw from or discharge into the Huron River, presenting the project as a model of responsible design. These assurances have not resolved community concerns, because the University’s constitutional autonomy exempts it from township zoning review. Local residents and officials have emphasized that voluntary commitments are not the same as enforceable standards.

Energy and water use remain the defining questions. Federal research shows that U.S. data centers already consume over four percent of national electricity, a figure expected to rise sharply within a few years. Studies also estimate that direct water use for cooling exceeds tens of billions of gallons each year, with hundreds of billions more used indirectly through electricity generation. Each new facility adds to a growing cumulative burden on shared resources. The Ypsilanti project may not match the scale of a commercial hyperscale center, yet its resource footprint will still shape the region’s environmental trajectory.

Environmental Justice in Ypsilanti

Research from the Ford School of Public Policy and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition documents how data centers often promise economic benefits that rarely reach local communities. These projects typically create temporary construction work but few permanent jobs. They can also raise energy costs for households that share the grid. Ypsilanti Township’s decision to urge the University to consider alternate locations reflects an effort to ensure that the benefits and burdens of technological progress are distributed more fairly.

For residents, the debate is not only about one facility. It is about whether decisions on major infrastructure respect local input, address existing inequities, and safeguard air, water, and household budgets. The Ypsilanti discussion illustrates why environmental justice must be central to planning for digital infrastructure.

Policy and Precedent

Recent examples from other states show the risks of limited oversight. In The Dalles, Oregon, residents learned through a public-records lawsuit that a Google data center was consuming more than a quarter of the city’s water supply. In Memphis, Tennessee, a computing complex installed gas turbines that emitted significant pollutants before air-quality permits were issued. These cases illustrate how secrecy and weak oversight can leave communities with unexpected costs and risks.

Michigan’s policy environment makes local advocacy even more important. State law extends sales-tax exemptions for data-center equipment through 2050, which reduces the financial leverage of local governments. At the federal level, proposals to require greenhouse-gas disclosure by large contractors have been withdrawn. The result is a regulatory landscape that depends heavily on community organizing, investigative reporting, and nonprofit oversight to secure basic protections.

The Ecology Center’s Role

For the Ecology Center, the Ypsilanti project is part of a broader shift in Michigan’s energy and technology landscape. As data centers proliferate, the Center is clear that new facilities must not undermine the state’s climate commitments or prolong the life of fossil fuel infrastructure. Any effort to use legal “off-ramps” from clean-energy mandates, or to keep aging gas and coal plants running in order to serve new computing loads, conflicts with the long-term public interest. The Ecology Center approaches proposals like the U-M facility with a straightforward expectation: artificial intelligence and high-performance computing must operate within a genuinely decarbonizing energy system.

The Center also insists that the cost of new energy infrastructure for data centers should not fall on households or small businesses. Under Michigan’s rate-setting rules, the capital costs of new generation and grid upgrades are often recovered through higher utility bills. The Ecology Center will press regulators and utilities to ensure that large data users cover the infrastructure built for them, rather than shifting those costs onto residential and commercial ratepayers who already face significant energy burdens.

Environmental health is another central concern. Data centers can introduce PFAS into local environments through construction materials and cooling systems, and can place intense pressure on local water supplies. The Ecology Center supports strict limits on PFAS use in these projects and opposes any water use that would deplete local watersheds or drive up water rates for surrounding communities. Even when a project, like the Ypsilanti proposal, commits not to draw directly from a nearby river, the Center evaluates the full water footprint, including upstream demands from electricity generation.

The Ecology Center also treats data-center siting as an environmental justice issue. The organization supports communities that do not want these facilities in their neighborhoods, particularly in places that already face cumulative pollution and economic stress. Although the Center does not yet have dedicated staff or funding focused solely on data centers, it is committed to working with partners to secure strong safeguards. That work includes supporting campaigns for disclosure, climate-aligned power procurement, PFAS restrictions, and water protections, as well as backing local leaders who call for development that respects both community well-being and ecological limits.

A Broader Vision for Accountability

Ypsilanti Township’s organized response has already led to a delay in construction and renewed scrutiny of the project’s location. The University’s willingness to revisit its plans suggests that community engagement can influence even powerful institutions. Similar questions are beginning to surface around other proposed data-center developments in Michigan, which makes the stakes of this moment even clearer.

The future of the Ypsilanti project remains uncertain, yet the core lesson is already visible. Environmental responsibility needs to be built into the foundations of emerging technologies, not added as an afterthought. Artificial intelligence and advanced computing should not move forward on the assumption that communities will absorb the environmental cost. Instead, any promise of AI must be matched by enforceable protections for environmental health, transparent decision-making, and a meaningful role for local residents in shaping what comes next.

While the outcome in Ypsilanti is still unsettled, data center construction is advancing elsewhere in Washtenaw County and across Michigan. The proposed 1.4 gigawatt facility in Saline Township, now tied to a special contract case before the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), reflects many of the same tensions over climate and community costs that have surfaced around the Ypsilanti project.

Public oversight of this build-out is already moving into formal regulatory venues. On Dec. 3, the MPSC will hold a virtual public hearing in Case No. U-21990 on DTE Electric’s proposed special contracts to serve a 1.4 gigawatt data center in Saline Township, to be operated by an Oracle subsidiary. Although the Commission does not control where data centers are built or how much water they use, it does set the rates and terms under which utilities serve them, including protections intended to shield other customers from subsidizing very large new loads or absorbing the costs if a facility later leaves the system. Public participation in hearings like this is one of the few ways residents can press regulators to treat data centers as part of Michigan’s climate and equity commitments and to insist that large users pay the full cost of the infrastructure they require. It is also a chance to demand transparent contracts that protect households and small businesses as AI infrastructure expands across the state.

Sources

• Ford School of Public Policy and Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition. What Happens When Data Centers Come to Town? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2025. [Link]
• Hedin, Glenn. “Ypsilanti Residents Protest UMich Data Center Construction.” The Michigan Daily, October 16, 2025. [Link]
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. United States Data Center Energy and Water Use Report: 2023 Update.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 2024. [Link]
• Michigan Department of Treasury. Data Center Equipment Sales and Use Tax Exemption Extension Act. Lansing, 2025. [Link]
• Michigan Strategic Fund Board. Meeting Minutes and Project Packet: University of Michigan / Los Alamos National Laboratory High-Performance Computing Facility. Lansing, December 10, 2024. [Link]
• Perkins, Tom. “Los Alamos and University of Michigan Plan National Security, AI Data Center in Ypsilanti Twp.” Michigan Advance, October 8, 2025. [Link]
• Rogoway, Mike. “The Dalles Settles Public-Records Lawsuit over Google’s Data Centers; Will Disclose Water Use.” OregonLive, updated February 22, 2023. [Link]
• Wittenberg, Ariel. “Elon Musk’s xAI in Memphis: 35 Gas Turbines, No Air Pollution Permits.” Politico, May 6, 2025, 10:32 a.m. EDT. [Link]
• University of Michigan. Frequently Asked Questions: U-M / Los Alamos National Laboratory High-Performance Computing Project. Ann Arbor: Office of the Vice President for Research, July 2025. [Link]
• U.S. Department of Energy. Electricity Consumption Trends in Data-Center Infrastructure. Washington, D.C.: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2024. [Link]
• U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulation Council. Withdrawal of Proposed Rule: Greenhouse Gas Disclosure for Major Federal Contractors. Washington, D.C., January 2025. [Link]

Electric school buses are winning over students and drivers with their surprisingly quiet, clean, and smooth rides

By Trilby MacDonald, Ecology Center Writer

Unlike the popular cartoon series, Michigan’s school buses aren’t equipped to take students through the intestinal tract or into the heart of a volcano. But our fleet of 17,000 buses do take close to a million students to and from school, sports practice, clubs, and field trips each year. A bright yellow school bus rumbling down the road is a happy sight. But the roar of bus engines and the smell of diesel is received with less joy. Wouldn’t it be magical if school buses were quiet and clean?

Miraculously, about 900 of them are, thanks in part to $5 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding to support states in acquiring zero-emission school buses through the EPA's Clean School Bus Rebate Program. And that number is growing. The Michigan Department of Education has stepped up with its own grant program, the Clean School Bus Energy Grant, and just released a call for proposals to help 23 schools add 87 electric buses, using a combination of state and federal funding. Applications for this final round of funding are due Dec. 18, 2025. 

The Ecology Center was a strong supporter of the MI Clean School Bus program, joining a coalition of groups advocating for $125 million to be allocated toward its creation in the state budget. “Not only does the program help to reduce childhood exposure to harmful diesel emissions, but it advances the state’s climate goals while also reducing costs for participating school districts,” said Charles Griffith, climate and energy program director at the Ecology Center. “That’s a win-win-win for kids, the climate, and our schools.” 

The Dearborn Public School District received $1.2 from the Michigan Department of Education and two EPA Clean Bus Energy grants totaling $7.4 million, allowing it to purchase 18 Blue Bird All American Type D electric-powered buses and 20 charging stations. It was the largest single rollout of electric school buses in Michigan. 

“The addition of these 18 electric buses is another example of how our district is leading the way and taking actions that will benefit students and the greater Dearborn community,” comments Dr. Glenn Maleyko, Dearborn Public Schools Superintendent. “There is also a lesson here for our students about the importance of being good stewards of the environment and taking steps to be a role model.” 

Dearborn has the third-largest school district in Michigan with over 20,000 students attending 37 schools, all located in residential areas. Over four thousand of these students take the fleet of 76 Blue Bird buses to school and extracurricular activities every day. Transportation is the second largest source of air pollution in the state, and has a direct impact on children’s health. Early exposure to heavy traffic emissions and pollutants from industrialization can cause cognitive delays and result in lower test scores for students. 

According to the EPA, Dearborn is one of the more polluted communities in Michigan, with multiple air permit violations and ongoing exposure to particulate matter and chemicals like nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. Consequently, asthma rates among Detroit-area youth are nearly twice the Michigan average. The Clean School Bus Rebate Program and Clean Bus Energy Grant target districts like Dearborn where local pollution burdens are higher. 

“The Dearborn Public Schools has a history of being one of those districts that likes to try new initiatives,” explains David Mustonen, Director of Communications for the Dearborn Public Schools. The electric buses are a highly visible example of the Dearborn School District’s innovative spirit that has immediate benefits for students. “Another benefit of EV buses is that you don’t have idling diesel buses parked outside of schools as students are entering or exiting the bus,” Mustonen adds. “Any steps we can take to create environmentally friendly conditions around our schools and students is going to be worth exploring.” 

Students and drivers have embraced the new buses. Lisa Brook, Transportation Supervisor for Dearborn Public Schools, says that when an electric bus has to be pulled for service, the drivers “really don’t like going back to their diesel buses. We get every day ‘Is my bus back? Is my bus back?’”

“The student reaction is they think it’s so cool,” says Rosanna Hubbard-Schwenke, who has been driving school buses for the Dearborn Public Schools for 27 years. “When they first heard that we were going to get electric buses they were like ‘Miss, When are you going to get one? When are you going to get one? When are you going to get one?’ I was like, okay calm down!”

Hubbard-Schwenke likes the way her electric bus handles and is now breathing easier. “Without the fumes, it’s 100% better. And the noise, it’s barely even there. There isn’t even a little noise, to let the people know that something’s coming down the road!”

“It’s very, very quiet,” says Elias Hall, who is in the 11th grade at Dearborn High School. The electric buses offer a more “comfortable experience,” he says. “The old buses, the diesel ones, they used to spit out like gas fumes all the time,” noting that “Helping out the planet with electric vehicles is always a good feeling. So I love riding the bus.” 

Beyond the health and environmental advantages, the district hopes that the electric buses will cost less to run and maintain. According to Blue Bird, which manufactures both the district’s diesel and the EV buses, customers report fuel costs of up to 79 cents per mile for their diesel buses compared to an average 14 cents per mile in energy costs for electric buses. They travel up to 120 miles on a single charge and can be fully charged in 6-8 hours. 

“Children and others in their communities benefit from cleaner air,” said Interim State Superintendent Dr. Sue C. Carnell. “We are happy to work with our partners at the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to make our state greener. The Clean Bus Energy Grant program helps us move toward Goal Three in Michigan’s Top 10 Strategic Education Plan, to improve the health, safety, and wellness of all learners.”

Transportation accounts for twenty eight percent of all pollution in Michigan, and bringing that percentage down is part of the MI Healthy Climate Plan. EGLE collaborates closely with the Department of Education on the grant program, contributing funding, environmental oversight, collaboration, and program support. 

While the advantages of the electric buses are immediately evident, they are significantly more expensive than diesel buses and it will take time to assess if Dearborn will convert its entire fleet to electric. But it’s clear that going electric fits squarely within their larger goals. 

“I’m not going to say that Dearborn Public Schools buying 18 buses is going to solve all the climate issues that exist,” admits Mustonen. “But what I will say is this, if we do nothing, if we don’t take any steps, that’s the real crime here.”

Twenty-eight school districts across Michigan received state and federal grants for electric school buses, from Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Detroit, to Traverse City, Bessemer, and Ojibwe Charter School. Applications for $44 million in Clean Bus Energy Grant program funding are due Dec. 18, 2025. 

The Ecology Center, along with Defend Our Health, the Alliance of Mission-Based Recyclers, Wayne State University, and Toronto Metropolitan University, conducted a peer-reviewed study on the contamination of PET plastic. 

Plastics, particularly polyethylene terephthalate (PET), are widely used as food contact materials, textiles, and toys. However, their widespread use and potential for human exposure raise environmental and health concerns, particularly regarding the leaching of chemical additives. This study assessed hazardous plastic additives and non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) leached from paired virgin and recycled PET bottles (soda and water) purchased from Michigan and California and from textiles (toys, pillows, and clothing) acquired online or in stores in Michigan and Oregon. 

Research found different contaminants in PET products. It identified 12 harmful additives, six organophosphate esters (OPEs), and 15 non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). Recycled PET (rPET) bottles often contained benzene, while new PET had more ethylene glycol and 2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane. OPEs were more common in rPET, suggesting recycling can introduce contaminants.

Location also mattered: Michigan bottles had more benzaldehyde, while California bottles had higher diethylene glycol levels, showing varied manufacturing methods. Textiles showed unique contamination patterns from laundry processes.

Tests revealed hormone receptor activity blocking in PET products, with no clear link to the type of PET, indicating potential health risks from both kinds. Ongoing monitoring of contaminants in PET is necessary, especially for unregulated substances.

Environmental Significance

Our findings demonstrate the pervasive presence of numerous hazardous compounds, including plasticizers and flame retardants, in virgin and recycled PET bottles and textiles. The detection of these substances, particularly their leaching under environmentally relevant conditions and their observed endocrine-disrupting activity, indicates a potential environmental and human exposure risk. This research emphasizes that current practices in plastic additive use led to complex chemical mixtures with potential adverse impacts on water quality, sensitive ecosystems, and vulnerable populations, necessitating a re-evaluation of material safety and recycling processes.

Read the full report: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/em/d5em00615e

By Keanu Heydari, Environmental Storyteller Fellow, Rackham Graduate School 

From Crisis to Leadership

Lead exposure remains one of Michigan’s most significant, yet solvable public‑health challenges. The state crossed an important threshold on July 2, 2025, when Flint announced completion of its court‑mandated lead service line replacements — an arduous, years‑long project that became a national touchstone for drinking‑water safety. That milestone matters. But even with pipes replaced, the principal sources of ongoing exposure for most Michigan children are older housing, deteriorating paint and dust, unsafe renovation and demolition practices, and contaminated soil. Put bluntly: Flint’s headline was never the whole story.  

The scientific consensus is unsparing: there is no safe level of lead exposure for children. The policy implication follows directly — prevention, not merely response, is the standard against which progress should be judged. The Ecology Center (EC) and its coalitions have worked to that standard for decades — before, during, and after Flint — through research, education, and policy advocacy in Lansing and Washington.  

Policy Successes — Two Years of Momentum

The last two years mark a genuine turning point. Working alongside partners across the state, the Ecology Center helped shape two major Michigan policies that move the needle from reaction to prevention.

Filter First in schools and child care centers. In October 2023, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed bipartisan “Filter First” legislation requiring the installation of filtered drinking water stations in schools and child care centers and establishing ongoing testing and maintenance. Implementation deadlines are specific and near‑term: Drinking Water Management Plans by January 24, 2025; filtered sources in child care by October 24, 2025; and approved filters on all consumptive fixtures in schools by the end of the 2025–26 school year. These details matter because the law’s promise will be realized only if districts are supported to purchase, install, maintain, and monitor the systems equitably. EC and partners will continue to support implementation toward that end.  

Universal childhood blood‑lead testing. Also in 2023, Michigan enacted age‑based screening for all children at 12 and 24 months and at age 4 if not tested earlier, with data reporting to immunization records — rules that MDHHS finalized on May 5, 2025. Expanded screening will almost certainly increase the number of documented cases. That should be read not as a worsening epidemic, but as a clearer picture — one that enables faster, targeted interventions. Policy succeeds only if testing is paired with prompt environmental investigation, remediation, and support for families most at risk.  

None of this happened in isolation. EC worked in coalition — with the Michigan Alliance for Lead Safe Homes (MIALSH), the Healthy Homes Coalition of West Michigan, Michigan Environmental Council, DLEAD (Wayne State University Center for Urban Studies) and other Detroit‑based partners, regional health departments up north, and many others — to craft proposals, brief lawmakers, and bring community voices into committee rooms. Coalition is not a flourish in a press release; it is how durable policy gets made.

Community Empowerment — The LIFT Program

Policy sets guardrails; people shift culture. The Lead Impacted Families Together (LIFT MI) program is the on‑the‑ground counterpart to these legislative wins. Funded by the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, in 2025, EC and partner organizations ran a seven‑month, bilingual training that equipped families to understand exposure pathways, navigate testing and health systems, and advocate effectively at city halls, health departments, and the Capitol. Graduates are now applying what they learned at neighborhood scale.  

LIFT MI’s 2025 cohort convened through the Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation (Southwest Detroit), Parents for Healthy Homes (Grand Rapids), the Healthy Homes Coalition of West Michigan (Grand Rapids), and the Delta & Menominee County Public Health Department (Upper Peninsula). Participants designed action projects that reflect their communities: a Kahoot! game to teach lead safety basics; a lead prevention cookbook; social‑media posts on the importance of testing; and a pregnancy handout on exposure prevention. As Melissa Cooper Sargent, EC’s Environmental Health Advocate, puts it: “We want to give people the tools to be a voice to share what they’ve learned.”

The organizing philosophy is simple and intentional: environmental justice requires meeting people where they are and stitching together rural and urban Michigan in the same conversation. Meli Garcia, EC’s Regional Environmental Health Organizer, underscores the point: “It’s important to bring different groups of people together … They’re coming from different areas, rural and city. It’s been great working with the participants because they have different ideas on which education spoke to them most and what their action project’s going to be.” That pluralism — of place and strategy — is why the program travels so well.  

National Impact — Michigan as a Model

Michigan’s trajectory is being noticed nationally. EC staff carry that story to Washington, D.C., not to celebrate but to persuade. In May 2025, while traveling in the region, Melissa Cooper Sargent met with congressional offices — including those of Senators Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin and Representatives Shri Thanedar and Hillary Scholten — to make a practical case for sustained federal investment in lead prevention and healthy housing. Those meetings complement EC’s long‑running Lead Education Day at the Michigan Capitol — most recently on May 7, 2025 — where families and practitioners brief lawmakers directly.  

National partners reinforce the strategy. Tom Neltner, National Director of Unleaded Kids, emphasizes that data and stories must travel together: “We can calculate the billions of dollars that would be saved if we could reduce exposure to lead. That helps on the Hill. But the anecdotes matter. Real stories from real people matter a lot.” His organization has spotlighted — and helped propel — state‑level transparency measures, including California’s AB 899, which requires baby‑food manufacturers to test monthly for heavy metals and publicly disclose results, and New Jersey’s 2025 law requiring landlords to disclose lead drinking‑water hazards to tenants. The point is not to replicate policy wholesale, but to show that states can act decisively while federal budgets and rules remain contested. 

At the federal level, advocates have pushed back against proposed reductions and program changes; even amid debate, key lead programs continued to move resources in FY2025 — for example, EPA’s school and child‑care lead testing and reduction grants were allotted in June. The lesson is straightforward: appropriation lines shift; momentum must not.  

Looking Ahead — The Work Isn’t Done

Michigan has new laws on the books and new community capacity in the field. But vigilance is the price of progress. Are schools and child care centers receiving timely technical assistance and funding to meet Filter First deadlines? Are replacement filters maintained and sampling protocols followed equitably across districts? Are pediatric practices prepared for universal testing workflows so that families are not lost between screening, confirmatory testing, and environmental intervention? These are not rhetorical questions; they are implementation checklists.

For the Ecology Center’s lead program, the next phase is clear:

• Support four lead prevention bills that were recently introduced in the Michigan State Legislature. The bills, HB 4864-4867, would assure that lead poisoned children get the services they need, families and contractors are protected while renovation, repairs and painting are taking place in homes built before 1978, and baby food in Michigan is made safer.
• Implementation with integrity. Track and support Filter First and universal screening so compliance translates into exposure reduction — especially in communities with the oldest housing and fewest resources.
• Community education at scale. Expand LIFT MI cohorts and alumni networks; connect graduates to Lead Education Day to move neighborhood insights into statewide policy.
• Policy and budget advocacy. Continue coalition work in Lansing and D.C. to strengthen housing, renovation, and soil‑safety protections and to secure federal and state funding streams that match the scope of the problem. Maintain focus on transparency measures that help parents and tenants act.  

“Sometimes when you do this work, it starts to feel like you’re all alone,” Tom Neltner, National Director at Unleaded Kids, told us. “Getting past that loneliness — and the ability to share with others — is important. Ecology Center not only does the science right, but it allows people to do the networking so they can learn from it. A learning community on lead is so valuable.”

Two years of policy success give us momentum — and responsibility. Michigan has shown that prevention can be legislated and that communities can be trained to own the work. Now is the time to build on it, measure it rigorously, and insist that every child in Michigan drink water and live in homes that are truly lead‑safe.

Sources 

• Flint completion (July 2, 2025): Michigan Advance; Inside Climate News.
• No safe level of lead for children: American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics policy statement.
• Filter First law + implementation timeline: Governor’s press release (Oct. 19, 2023); EGLE program page.
• Universal testing law + rule finalization (May 5, 2025): Governor’s press release (Oct. 3, 2023); MDHHS.
• LIFT MI program and 2025 cohort/graduation coverage: Ecology Center; Concentrate/Model D feature.
• Lead Education Day (May 7, 2025): Michigan Environmental Council.
• Unleaded Kids (Tom Neltner) + state actions: Unleaded Kids; CA AB 899 (CDPH); NJ lead‑hazard disclosure law.
• EPA FY2025 school/child‑care lead‑testing allotments (June 12, 2025): EPA memo.  

Thanks to our partners — including MIALSH, Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation, Parents for Healthy Homes, Healthy Homes Coalition of West Michigan, Delta & Menominee County Public Health Department, the Great Lakes Lead Elimination Network, and Unleaded Kids — whose ongoing work grounds and accelerates everything above.

Growing food for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors connects us to the land and helps ensure our communities have access to healthy locally grown food and spaces that restore the relationship between people, the environment & food. If we don't have healthy soil, we don't have healthy food. If we don't have healthy food, we don't have healthy people." - jøn kent, Sanctuary Farms

By Trilby MacDonald, Ecology Center Writer

Electric vehicles (EVs) are at a crossroads. They cut pollution, save drivers money, and are the fastest growing segment of the automotive industry. Most domestic EVs are built right here in Michigan, but in just 15 years, government support helped China dominate a market the U.S. invented. Lack of supportive Federal policies have sent manufacturing jobs overseas when they could stay in Michigan. 

The stakes are high. Transportation is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Detroit metro area has some of the dirtiest air in the nation, costing billions in lost productivity each year. EVs offer a solution: They help clear the air and save drivers hundreds of dollars a year on gas and maintenance. But upfront costs, hidden fees, and range anxiety prevent many people from making the switch.

Right now, short sighted policies are steering us away from the EV market instead of towards it. If lawmakers invest in EV incentives they can spark job growth, keep Michigan competitive, and make clean, reliable cars affordable for more Americans. 

Federal Policy Whiplash: From Support to Rollback

Thanks in part to the $7,500 federal EV tax credit, the number of EVs and plug-in hybrids (PEVs) on U.S. roads grew from 2.1 million in 2021 to 6.2 million in 2025, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation’s Q1 2025 report. Domestic growth lags far behind the rest of the world, however, with sales increasing only 6% so far in 2025 compared to the global growth of 25%. Even with the tax credit ending, though, EVs remain cost-effective. According to the Department of Energy, EV drivers can save up to $2,200 annually with an EV compared to a gas vehicle. So why aren’t more Americans buying EVs?

Concerns about charging remain one of the biggest barriers. Many would-be EV drivers hesitate to go electric because existing fast chargers are hard to find and often unreliable, with some failing to deliver their advertised charge rate — or not working at all. Michigan has just over 3,300 public chargers but a recent study by Michigan State University estimates the state needs 66,000 to support the roughly 85,000 EVs currently on the roads and meet future demand.

The good news is that public and private investment is beginning to address these gaps. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program and Michigan’s Charge Up Michigan program will add more than 250 new fast chargers statewide by 2030. Private companies such as Mercedes-Benz, IONNA, and Walmart are also racing to meet demand, with plans to install tens of thousands of fast chargers across the country.

Even as the charging network expands, Michigan’s EV market faces strong national headwinds, with shifting policies and regulatory setbacks threatening to blow it off course. The end of the federal tax credit could reduce national EV demand by as many as 8 million vehicles by 2030, according to Princeton’s Net Zero America analysis. The anticipated sales slump is already making U.S. automakers less likely to invest in the next generation of battery technology that would increase driving range. EV sales here lag the U.S. average, with just 3.2% of new-car sales compared to 8% nationally. 

Politics plays a role. EVs have been cast by opponents as a symbol of liberal entitlement, supposedly out of touch with the needs of working families. There is a grain of truth: While EVs save drivers thousands of dollars over time, up-front costs make them unaffordable for average households. But this reality is being worsened — not solved — by federal decisions to remove purchase incentives for new and used EVs and roll back clean air rules. Repealing the EPA’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” for example, would strip the agency’s authority to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, clearing the way for more gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. 

Automakers are already adjusting course: GM scaled back plans to produce EV pickups in Orion Township, and is now retooling the plant for traditional SUVs. Ford has scaled back and delayed EV production plans as well, but is now committing to a more affordable product mix and manufacturing process intended to compete with the Chinese. Stellantis also canceled its all-electric pickup 1500, but will instead produce an extended range electric vehicle with gasoline engine that can be used solely to recharge the battery — something that many consumers have been demanding to address range and re-charging limitations, particularly when towing. While these set-backs are disappointing, they were no-doubt needed to re-align automaker product offerings with consumer demand.

These challenges make Michigan’s role more urgent. State policy, local innovation, and public demand are essential to help keep the EV market strong and support Michigan’s auto industry to compete in the global race for clean mobility. 

Michigan Automakers Reach a Fork in the Road

Even though Michigan automakers like Ford are currently losing money on EVs, they know that walking away from EVs now would mean missing out on big profits later. It takes time and money to develop a new technology.  That’s why government support is so important. The U.S. government was a major investor in the early days of the auto industry, helping to create  millions of good jobs. The Chinese government jump started EV production and today, China sells four times as many EVs and batteries than the U.S. Electric vehicles are becoming more popular all over the world, and cleaner air will lower healthcare costs and make life better for everyone. Michigan has always been a leader in making cars, and it should have a bigger role in producing the cars of the future. 

Michigan has already generated 26,000 new clean energy jobs since 2022, many of them in the automotive sector. Global demand continues ramping up, and Michigan needs to do everything it can to keep jobs and profits here. With the right policies, Michigan’s EV industry can deliver tens of thousands of additional high-paying jobs, cleaner air, and lower costs for families—ensuring Michigan remains a driving force in the world’s mobility future.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and Michigan’s Mobility Future

In one fell swoop, the OBBBA is managing to reverse years of work to transition the American economy to renewable energy and electric vehicles—and Michigan stands to lose the most. By abruptly ending key federal EV incentives and introducing new tariffs, the law will significantly raise EV prices and slow demand, derailing the state’s ambitious production goals. Michigan’s efforts to meet untapped demand already face buyer uncertainty and better incentives in other states. Throw in possible rollbacks of EPA authority needed to enforce clean air policies, and our chances of competing are slim. More than half of Michigan’s planned EV manufacturing projects have been delayed or canceled in the past two years, costing us thousands of jobs and billions in investments.

While the NEVI program was reinstated after legal challenges, Michigan must now compete even harder for funds amid fierce political opposition to infrastructure spending. Meanwhile, potential hikes to EV registration fees as part of road funding reforms could make Michigan even less attractive to investors. Lawmakers need to take bold action to protect incentives, build chargers, and ensure road funding fees do not penalize EVs. It would be profoundly ironic if Michigan drivers couldn’t reliably use EVs built by their own automakers because state policymakers failed to lead. Michigan’s legacy in the auto industry gives it the foundation to lead this transition, but it must seize the opportunity to make more EVs here and keep its economy moving forward.

Ecology Center Prioritizes Michigan’s Clean Mobility Future

We see the need for new policies in three key areas: increasing opportunities to charge EVs, reducing the cost to buy and own an EV, and creating new ways for EVs to support the electric grid

First, we’re working to expand access to charging — especially in apartments, rural areas, and other places with limited options — by pushing for laws that require charging stations in new buildings and supporting utility plans that increase charging infrastructure. 

Second, we’re advocating for lower costs for EV owners by championing state and utility incentives, promoting affordable financing, and opposing unfair road user fees or taxes that make EV ownership more expensive. 

Third, we’re advancing policies that allow EVs to act as a grid resource, either by shifting their charging away from times of heavy use or sending power back to the grid.  In this way, EVs can also help to support the broader transition to reliable and clean energy for Michigan.

Through these efforts, the Ecology Center and its allies are making it easier and more affordable for working families to choose and benefit from electric vehicles.