A new report finds that the rise in requests to build huge data centers across the country could reshape the size and cost of the electric grid in Michigan.

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that within five years data centers could require well over half of all the new power demand in the state.

One of the report’s co-authors, Lee Shaver, specifically analyzed the likely impact of data centers on Michigan.

Shaver says the question is not how much new electricity Michigan will need, it’s who will pay for it.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

Lee Shaver: The utilities have what’s called an obligation to serve. So they are going to build enough generation capacity to be able to meet the demand from data centers. The way that the system is supposed to work is that whoever causes that new demand pays for it. But the amount of demand we’re seeing from data centers kind of upsets the way that these things have been done historically. There’s a much higher likelihood that customers other than the data center would end up paying for a portion of those costs.

The big difference is just how much larger the data centers are. As an example, the total size of the data center that DTE Electric was just approved to connect to their grid in Saline Township would be 1.4 gigawatts, which is equivalent to the energy demand of over a million homes.

If could take decades for a million people to move into a new city. It’s slow growth that the utility can plan for over a long timeframe. Those costs can be spread out very easily. But when you’ve got a million homes showing up in a community in less than two years, that’s a massive amount of growth. There’s tons of new infrastructure that has to be built. And the regulation just can’t accommodate that level of growth without the way that those costs are covered being distorted.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: The Michigan Public Service Commission says the agreement between the data center and DTE includes strong protections against a big rate increase for customers. I’ve also heard that some utilities require owners of data centers to pay what’s called a “large load tariff.” Just what is that?

LS: The word tariff is a bit misleading, especially since tariffs have been in the news so much. But when a utility talks about a large load tariff, they’re talking about a set of terms and conditions that data centers have to agree to in order to be provided with electric service.

And there are a lot of really good and positive things in those tariffs that utilities are proposing, like minimum contract terms, minimum monthly billing amounts. The challenge is that, especially in Michigan, especially with the DTE data center that was just approved, there’s just not enough detail that has been made public from these large load tariffs and from the applications that the data centers themselves are submitting for the public to have assurance that the costs are actually going to be covered.

QK: Is there a point where you finally find that out one way or the other? Does it have to be when the centers are operating or can it be determined while they’re constructed?

LS: There’s several points in the process at which that needs to be done. Obviously the large load tariff needs to be in place when that contract between the data center and the utility is signed. There has to be transparency. A lot of that information, though not all of it, should be public so that it can be reviewed. And there should be regular reporting on at least an annual basis. The utility and the data center should be providing information back to the regulators to say, here’s how much energy was provided, here’s how much it cost, here’s how it was paid for. And at the same time, look at how the billing of other customers changed over that same time period.

QK: Does it take until the things are actually up and going before you can really find that out? Or can you tell that during the construction process?

LS: You need both pieces. You’re not going to get assurance that it happened properly until after things are up and running. But if you don’t have a good framework in place at the beginning to collect and share that data, you would never get any reassurance that it’s been done properly.

QK: Beyond purely financial considerations, I’ve heard some concerns about the possible health or other costs that could be associated with these massive data centers. In your view, is it reasonable to be worried about some of those effects?

LS: Absolutely. What we know today is that any new data centers coming in the near term are going to result in more fossil fuels being burned to provide them with power. And when we burn fossil fuels, there’s emissions of heat trapping carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that have measurable health impacts. Our report found that due to data centers being built over the next 5-10 years, there’s close to $20 billion worth of health damages that would be caused from air pollution, most of which would happen directly in Michigan. And the global climate damages are estimated to be over $400 billion across the 2026-2050 timeframe.

QK: Having analyzed the issue, what, in your view, is the best strategy for a state like Michigan to follow in regards to where or how many data centers are allowed in?

LS: We didn’t speak to whether or not specific data centers should be allowed to operate, but we do make a couple of recommendations from the policy side.

In addition to the steps that need to be taken to ensure that data centers pay for their own costs, we also recommend what we’re calling a CO2 reduction policy. We found that’s necessary because, while Michigan does have some really progressive clean energy and renewable energy standards, with the growth in data centers, those standards are not enough to continue Michigan on the path to reaching net zero carbon emissions. A CO2 reduction policy would essentially set a limit on how much fossil fuel can be burned in the state of Michigan. And by enacting that limit, over time combustion of fossil fuels will be reduced and all of those negative health impacts would diminish.

QK: Considering the current makeup of Congress and the White House, in your view, how realistic is it that such prohibitions could actually get through?

LS: Our recommendation is actually at the state level, for exactly that reason. And our modeling shows that regardless of policies elsewhere, if Michigan were to enact a CO2 reduction policy, it would have significant impacts on reducing emissions in Michigan.

In 2026, voters in Michigan will cast ballots for races involving the office of Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. Gary Peters (D-MI) is opting to retire, so there’s an open U.S. Senate seat.

Democrats have three strong candidates: Abdul El-Sayed, Mallory McMorrow, and Haley Stevens. All three have raised millions of dollars for their campaigns ahead of the August primary.

Over the next few months, Detroit Public Radio will be checking in with the candidates so our listeners can make an informed decision. The focus of this first round of interviews is to set a baseline for the candidates views on policy and what separates them from their competitors.

The series continues with Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a public health expert who has served as the health director for both Detroit and Wayne County.

He talked with All Things Considered Detroit Host Russ McNamara on Jan. 21, 2026.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

Medicare for All

Russ McNamara, WDET: You’ve written a book about Medicare for All. Why do you prefer that over a public option for health insurance?

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed: We’re watching as healthcare is becoming very quickly one of the most unsustainable features on anybody’s budget sheet. You’re seeing premiums go up 10, 15, 20%—and that’s not even if you’re on one of the ACA plans, for which the Trump Administration has now pulled subsidies going into next year. The unsustainability of our system is going to be paramount, and it’s going to be top of voters’ minds.

I’ve been consistent about the need for Medicare for All.

Medicare for All is government health insurance guaranteed for everyone, regardless of what circumstances you’re in. If you like your insurance through your employer or through your union, I hope that’ll be there for you. But if you lose your job, if your factory shuts down, you shouldn’t be destitute without the health care that you need and deserve.

But Medicare for All does more than just guaranteeing health care. It also addresses the increasing costs that we’re seeing skyrocket in our system by being able to negotiate prices on behalf of all of us, and it also creates a system where doctors and hospitals and clinics can compete with each other in a truly free market system. This is what we’ve needed in America for a very long time, and like you said, I wrote a book on how to do it back in 2021.

The foundations of our system have just gotten less sustainable since then. It would free us of so many of the fears that people have every day, the $225 billion of medical debt that Americans currently hold, which is higher than the GDP of half of the states in the entire country.

And beyond that, it gives us the safety and security that would spur the economy. Too often, small businesses don’t get founded simply because people are stuck in dead end jobs, even if they have an amazing idea, because they’re afraid of losing their health insurance.

Now a public option is exactly that; it’s just an option. There is no reason why it would actually address any of the foundational problems in our system. It wouldn’t bring down the rising costs. It wouldn’t guarantee people health care, and we don’t really know how much it would cost. Plus, there’s an added thing that folks need to think a little bit about—that those of us who’ve thought about the health care system understand—if you have a public option, what happens is, the private health insurance system will try to dump all of the most expensive patients onto that public option, vastly increasing the cost of that public option and making it unsustainable.

That being said, I want to be clear about something. I think too often when we talk about health care we talk about this or that. To me, anything that increases health care access, anything that would do so by increasing the public’s capacity to provide it and would reduce the power of corporations, is something that I would vote for. But I’m not going to make the mistake of pretending like that’s the whole answer. The whole answer is we need to get to Medicare for all. But if you want to climb to Mount Everest, you got to get to base camp, and you got to climb some other hills.

So I understand that we need to take steps along the way. But anybody who wants to tell you that somehow a public option will solve our health care problems doesn’t understand how health care works, or has taken too much money from the industry that does not want Medicare for All because of what it may mean for their profits.

The growing wealth gap

RM: High health care costs are just one part of the equation when it comes to the high expenses that Americans are facing right now. There’s also a concentration of wealth in the top 1, 5, 10% How do you address the growing wealth gap in this country?

AE: You know, I’m the only person running for U.S. Senate who’s never taken a dime of corporate money to fund a campaign, and that shows up in the ways that I stand up to corporations. So there’s two pieces here.

Number one: we’ve got to make it so that corporations can no longer buy access to politicians to do their bidding—a system that every other candidate I am running against has willingly participated in but me—and that makes sure that the system is not rigged against the rest of us, so that big corporations and billionaires can continue to make yet more money off of a system that funnels money from our back pockets into theirs.

But the second part of this is that I think we finally need to start taxing billionaire wealth. I’ve been very clear about the fact that for too long, our system has allowed billionaires to pay a lower effective tax rate than you and I, who make our money the old fashioned way—working for it.

The way we should be judging our economy is not by how much wealth accumulates at the very top, how many more billionaires we spit out, but rather we should be judging our economy based on whether or not it provides everyday Americans access to the basic means of a dignified life.

And I think we need to rethink the way that we do taxation in mainly so that we’re taxing the wealth of people make $100 million or more, because guess what? If you tax a billionaire at 8%, guess what? They’re still they’re still a billionaire. They’re still going to have money their kids, kids, kids, kids are still going to be rich.

And I think that we can get along to making sure that our kids have great public schools, that we’re providing health care and good infrastructure for all of us. And if we can do that, I think we can start to bring down the massive wealth inequality that’s only growing in this country.

RM: Ethically, should billionaires exist?

AE: I don’t think that our system should be in the business of creating billionaires. I think our system should be in the business of empowering everyday folks to be able to live a life with access to the basic dignities that they need and deserve, good housing, good health care, affordable food, the experience of knowing that you’re sending your kid to a school that dignifies their brain and empowers them for a career into the future.

Too few people have access to that right now, and I think that the way we should be judging our economy is not by how much wealth accumulates at the very top, how many more billionaires we spit out, but rather we should be judging our economy based on whether or [it] not provides everyday Americans access to the basic means of a dignified life.

We are the richest, most powerful country in the world. It is a crazy thing that people are struggling to afford their groceries, struggling to afford housing, wondering whether or not if they’re under 40 they’ll ever own a home, or if they can stay in their home. If they’re under 65, worried about whether or not they are going to go bankrupt simply because they got sick. Those are choices that we make, and at the wrong end of creating an economy that spits out more and more billionaires is the opportunity to be able to solve so many of those challenges for folks.

I think we need to reorient that system. That means, yes, taxing billionaires—it also means rethinking the firewall that should exist between billionaire money and corporate money and our politics. It means standing with unions, it means empowering small businesses, and it means guaranteeing every single person the health care that they need and deserve.

Data centers and the AI boom

RM: Michiganders seem to hate data centers. The growing AI boom—if it comes to fruition—will eat up a lot of resources. How would you weigh the need to address climate change with the constant need for business growth and more jobs in this state?

AE: In the last year alone we’ve had 15 data center proposals. Each of those data centers is partnering with a corporate utility that has raised our rates without actually improving the reliability of our electricity. Our costs go up, our reliability does not and we’re watching as these huge corporations are partnering with these utilities to try and bring these projects into our communities, promising a certain number of jobs.

I understand the fears that everyday folk have about what this will mean for the price of their electricity, the water that we take for granted in a state like Michigan, whether or not they’re going to have a job in the future. And so we’ve issued a data center terms of engagement. And what these terms of engagement are meant to do is clarify what the real risks are and hold data center projects accountable to addressing those risks.

Number 1: if you’re promising jobs, you better actually create the good union jobs that you say you want to create.

Number 2: your project should not increase the price of electricity for anyone in our state.

Number 3: you should have closed loop systems that do not rely on our fresh water or stress our water infrastructure.

Number 4: there should be a community benefits agreement that is negotiated with the local community to make sure that the value of the project actually moves into the community in which it’s going to be housed.

Number 5: investments that are made should improve the reliability of our utilities.

Number 6: these should be enforceable by penalty.

And the beautiful thing about this approach is that it offers a roadmap, both for local communities to hold data center projects accountable, but also it creates the pathway for the kind of federal legislation that I’d like to get passed as a U.S. Senator.

But these are challenges that we’re facing and the kind of approach that we’ve seen on the part of the corporations and the utilities, where they try to fly by night and steamroll local municipalities to get their projects done, all it’s done is fan the flame on mis and disinformation.

So what we want is clarity. We want transparency. We want integrity. We want honesty, and we want to make sure that folks understand exactly what’s coming to their local communities.

Accountability in government, Supreme Court reform

RM: Do you support the elimination of the filibuster, and how do you feel about making significant changes to the structure of the Supreme Court, whether it’s packing it, term limits, or making sure that there’s some sort of ethical accountability?

AE: The filibuster allows senators to hide behind just one senator, in effect, veiling them from democracy itself. Because if you don’t have to take a hard vote, your public won’t hold you accountable for the hard vote that you just took.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has acted in ways that demonstrate that really it’s become just a third political arm of government. So I oppose the filibuster.

If you look at what Trump is doing, he’s doing most of it by executive fiat. Most of what he’s trying to do is he’s trying to operate through the White House itself and where checks have failed have been at the Supreme Court, and I think that we need to start talking a bit about what term limits might look like.

I don’t think that this current system serves our democracy very well. I proposed a system that says that every president should have three appointments. Every Supreme Court justice should have at least 10 years and a possible renewal for another 10 years. But what that does is it incentivizes the selection of of jurists who want to interpret the Constitution on its own terms, because all of them may not know who the person making a decision about the reappointment might be, and it addresses the fact that you don’t want jurists who are too Junior and haven’t had as much experience or too senior, and may not be at the top of their game. I do think we need Supreme Court reform. 

Foreign policy

RM: U.S. foreign policy is currently at the forefront of the global conversation with President Trump’s ongoing thirst for Greenland, his Board of Peace for Gaza and the recent attack on Venezuela for oil. As a senator, what would your ideal foreign policy for the US?

AE: I believe in international law. I read my history. I look at all the effort after World War II, to stop the next world war from happening again. And courageous leaders who watched the carnage of that war came together and said, We need international law that we all abide by.

And the frustration is that as we’ve developed as the world’s superpower, we have sometimes abided by that international law and sometimes broken it. And I think where we have abided by it, where we have stood up, for example, to protect international law in circumstances like Bosnia and Herzegovina, in circumstances like Ukraine, I think we do great good in the world, but too often, we have decided to skirt that international law. When you look at the war in Iraq, when you look at Vietnam, and right now, when you look at the unilateral funding and subsidies of a genocide in Gaza, we have been the chief violator of international law.

My vision for our foreign policy is that, yes, we are strong, but we are the first among equals to stand up for that international law, rather than being the first to break it.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

RM: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have been terrorizing immigrants in communities of color – in blue states and cities – especially over the past year. Should ICE exist?

AE: No, we need to abolish ICE.

I just recently came back from my own personal fact finding mission in Minneapolis. Now I’m running for Senate in Michigan, but I also understand that if they can occupy a city like Minneapolis, they can do the same here in Michigan.

I just want to be clear about what ICE is. They tell us that this is about immigration and customs enforcement, but let’s be clear, immigration law is not criminal law, it’s civil law. So why do you need masked men carrying heavy weaponry on peaceful streets?

They tell us that this is about protecting the southern border, but I’ve looked at a map, and Minneapolis is not very close to the southern border. We can have a safe and secure southern border. We can enforce immigration law. But ICE is not about that. ICE is a paramilitary force normalizing the use of government power on peaceful streets, in thrall to one man. They are using the pretext of immigration to weaponize against the laws and norms and mores of our democracy and our Constitution itself. And I believe that it ought to be abolished.

If the idea of ICE is that they’re supposed to keep you safe, go ask Renee Good, or her widow or her orphaned child about how safe Renee Good is because of ICE.

I talked about abolishing ice back in 2018 because anybody could have seen where this is going. And now we’ve gotten here, and I shudder for our state, because they’re talking about buying a facility in Highland Park. They’ve got the facility in Baldwin. I do not want to see what I saw in Minneapolis here at home.

So when I’m in the U.S. Senate, I intend to lead the effort to abolish ICE, because I do not believe that it has anything to do with keeping our southern border secure and safe—which I intend to do—or with enforcing any of the laws when it comes to immigration, this is about normalizing paramilitary force and thrall to one man on our streets. And if there is anything that’s antithetical to the idea of America, it’s that.

Transgender rights

RM: The rights of transgender people to seek care, serve in the military or just play high school sports has been used by conservatives as a wedge issue, not just between Republicans and Democrats, but within the Democratic Party, what will you do to support that small, but disproportionately targeted part of our community?

AE: I believe that rights are rights, are rights, and when you assent to somebody taking away somebody else’s rights, you are at some point assenting to somebody coming for yours.

We have to stand together to fight for our collective rights, even when those rights are rights we may never see ourselves using. And I think that is it is critical for us to recognize where MAGA has tried to use this conversation to tear people apart, to get them into positions where we’re having a conversation about high school sports, rather than a conversation about health care or a conversation about affordable groceries or a conversation about how to make sure home ownership is possible. Those are the conversations that I’m hearing about up and down my state.

So I think it’s perfectly within the means of local communities and sporting governing bodies to lead the conversation about high school sports. I think it’s important for doctors to be able to provide the health care that their patients need in consultation with their parents if they are not of age.

But that has nothing to do with our broader public conversation in our politics. And so I want politics to be solving the problems that politics should be about solving. I want to make sure that communities and parents and families and doctors and sporting bodies get to make these decisions together, in consultation with each other, to take on these problems. Because every single moment that Republicans want us to be talking about trans kids or trans kids playing sports is a moment we’re not talking about making sure that everybody gets the health care that they need and deserve, and that people get access to housing, and those are the conversations we need to take on that they are imminent in our lives.

But rights are rights, are rights, and we need to be standing up for everybody’s rights when anybody tries to take them away.

How does a global community provide for the needs of its citizens without destroying the planet? That’s the crux of “Anthropause: The Beauty of Degrowth,” a new book out this month.

In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, society shut down for a few months. As humans stayed inside, animals returned to their old habitats and pollution eased as industry slowed.

Retired researcher—and new metro Detroit resident—Stan Cox looks at how that “anthropause” could be a preview of the necessary societal changes to save lives and the planet.

He spoke with All Things Considered – Detroit host Russ McNamara last month. Click on the media player to listen or read selected transcripts below.

Russ McNamara, WDET: Why did you write this book?

Stan Cox, Author: The main point I’m making in the book is imagining that we as a society, if we were to rapidly phase out fossil fuels and get by just on the energy that could be generated other ways; and if we stopped plundering the earth for minerals and cutting down forest and causing ecological damage; and we had less energy and materials, and had to allocate them carefully: people know that’s going to mean sacrifice. What am I going to have to give up and so forth?

And what I’m saying in the book is okay, yeah, there are certain things, obviously that will have to be given up. But let’s consider all of the dangers and nuisances, terrible stuff that we put up with an advanced industrial society that has all this energy and materials running through it.

We would be saying goodbye to a lot of those harms and ills by simply not doing a lot of the stuff that requires so much energy input. So the rest of the book, then, is going through specific technologies and activities and so forth that are really harmful to people and the environment, of course, that we would not have the fuel to undertake them, or we would be using resources for meeting people’s basic needs, and we wouldn’t be spending a lot of energy on these other things.

RM: You discuss this and I’m reminded of data centers to run artificial intelligence. People certainly don’t seem to want them and definitely don’t want these in their backyard because there is this concern about the high cost of electricity, and the amount of groundwater that is needed.

SC: That’s absolutely right. One of the big reasons these communities don’t want them is that they create this horrific noise at very high decibel levels and low low frequency noise, which is especially dangerous to human health. When I started writing the book, there wasn’t as much being said about A.I. and the data centers at that time, so I did eventually incorporated them, but the beginning of the second chapter is about noise pollution and and I just used it. It’s seemingly a very small thing, but it really brings out other issues. The leaf blower, especially the gas powered leaf blower, also produces this low frequency and very high volume sound—about eight times the decibel level that the World Health Organization says is safe – and they’re producing a wind about the speed of an EF five tornado. The low frequency sound can travel like three football fields. It’s still above the safe limit.

RM: So what are the societal impacts? Let’s say we start degrowth right now. What are the benefits?

SC: We can’t go on like we’re on the trajectory that we’re on now, because. A degrowth is going to happen. Either a chaotic, brutal degrowth where it’s a Mad Max kind of future, because we’ve tried to force growth to continue and have destroyed ecosystems

Or we can have a planned, rational degrowth that ensures that there’s enough for everybody and that we’re not causing ecological collapse. But there’s no way that growth can continue at this rate.

Sometime in the past three years, we passed a milestone. The quantity of human made stuff—that is everything that human society has manufactured or built or produced—if you weigh all of it up, the mass of all of that exceeds the total mass of all living things on Earth, all plants, animals, microbes, et cetera, and that quantity of stuff being produced is is doubling every 20 years. And clearly that can’t go on.

Herb Stein, an economist from the 70s or 80s was kind of the Yogi Berra of economists. He had a line: “if something can’t go on forever, it won’t” and that’s where growth cannot go on forever. So we have to pull back, create what I called in the book an “anthropause” of our own, and try to have a rational, safe and just reduction in the amount of economic activity for the good of everybody.

Artificial intelligence is already shaping daily life, whether we’re ready or not. That’s caused celebration and concern. 

It’s reducing the work we do, helping us find answers more quickly, and some research suggests it has strong capabilities to diagnose illness, perhaps better than doctors.

But the rise of AI is also accompanied by pessimism and fear. Jobs could be taken and never replaced; our loneliness could worsen; and scholars say our critical thinking abilities are already degrading.

Some of these concerns are the context for opposition to data centers. Those spaces house and advance artificial intelligence, and many don’t want them in their backyards. 

In Monroe and Kalamazoo Counties, there’s been pushback, which has might permanently delay the creation of data centers there. In Saline, many are unhappy about a center planned for the area. 

All of this is happening after Wayne State officially opened its own AI research center in October. 

Ezemenari Obasi is the Vice President for Research & Innovation at Wayne State University and heads the university’s Institute for AI and Data Science.

The Metro‘s Sam Corey spoke with him about why he believes AI can help us solve some of our biggest problems.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on demand.

Subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR.org or wherever you get your podcasts.

More stories from The Metro

Opposition to a proposed data center in Saline Township continues as state regulators prepare to take public comment on environmental permits tied to the project.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy will hold a virtual public hearing Thursday to gather input on whether to issue permits to developer Related Digital. The permits cover impacts to wetlands, streams, and nearby waterways.

Tim Bruneau, a member of Stop Saline Data Center who lives near the proposed site, raised concerns about the project’s closed-loop cooling system. He says repeated circulation concentrates contaminants such as glycol, rust inhibitors, and nitrates, which would eventually be discharged into the Saline River.

The project includes filling and excavating wetlands, installing culverts in unnamed streams, and constructing multiple stormwater outfalls that would discharge treated runoff into the Saline River, Bridgewater Drain, and other waterways. One of the outfalls would be located within the Saline River’s 100-year floodplain.

The virtual public hearing begins at 6 p.m. Information on how to attend is available at michigan.gov/egle.