On September 15, 2026, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell wrote to Supervisor Brenda Stumbo and the Ypsilanti Township community, copying University of Michigan President Domenico Grasso. The full letter is here — read it rather than taking my summary for it.
She states her position plainly: she strongly opposes the proposed Textile Road site. She is equally plain that this is not opposition to the University, to research, or to artificial intelligence — it is a demand that a project of this size be developed transparently, with the people who will live beside it having a meaningful voice.
The endorsement matters. But two things in that letter are new information, and both deserve more attention than the headline got.
1. There is a Superfund record at the Textile Road site
This is the biggest thing in the letter, and as far as I know nobody had raised it publicly before.
Rep. Dingell writes that the EPA maintains a record under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act — Superfund — for the Textile Road Site, EPA ID MID980825558, noting its proximity to the former General Motors Willow Run plant. According to the letter, EPA has stated that removal and cleanup work was completed and that the site is now in an oversight and management phase.
Careful here, because this is exactly the sort of thing that gets blown out of proportion. A completed cleanup in an oversight phase isn’t an active contamination emergency, and nobody should be describing it as one. What it is, is a site with a federal environmental history that ought to be reviewed before a billion-dollar industrial facility goes up on it. Which is exactly what the letter asks for.
And this corroborates something already in the record. In its December 2024 application to the Michigan Strategic Fund (pp. 52–65), the University was asked whether the investment would result in remediation of environmental contamination. Its answer: a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted that identified recognized environmental conditions, and a Phase II assessment is therefore planned, with any contaminated soils or groundwater above Part 201 criteria to be managed under due care requirements.
So the University knew in 2024 that a Phase I had flagged recognized environmental conditions. The Phase II results have never been made public. That report should be released, and it’s now on my list of records to request.
Rep. Dingell says she will ask EPA and EGLE to formally review the current status of the site. Her questions are the right ones: what contamination remains, what monitoring is required and by whom, where the monitoring wells are, what the most recent results show, whether land-use restrictions or environmental covenants apply, whether excavation, grading, foundations, utility installation or dewatering could disturb contaminated soil or groundwater, which agency can halt construction if contamination is found, and who pays for any additional remediation the project causes.
Not one of those questions was asked or answered at the September 9 town hall.
2. The $300 million from Los Alamos may not exist yet
The project has consistently been described as $1.25 billion: $850 million from the University, $300 million from Los Alamos National Laboratory, and $100 million from the State of Michigan.
Rep. Dingell says she has repeatedly sought answers from the Department of Energy, the University, and state appropriations officials about whether any federal appropriation, construction funding, grant, executed contract, or other binding federal financial commitment exists for this facility. Her stated understanding, from multiple official inquiries, is that there is no federal money appropriated and no federal financial commitment.
She quotes the University’s own 2024 FAQ, which acknowledged that federal funding had not yet been appropriated and argued that Los Alamos has consistently received its funding because its mission is vital to national security.
That may well turn out to be true. But as the letter puts it, there’s a real difference between saying Los Alamos may contribute $300 million under an agreement and an executed appropriation that has actually obligated federal dollars.
Which raises a question we should all care about: if 24% of the funding isn’t committed, what happens to a half-built facility on 144 acres in Ypsilanti Township if that money never shows up? The Michigan Strategic Fund grant agreement contemplates this — it requires the University to produce a fully executed multi-year occupancy agreement with Los Alamos before the bulk of the $100 million is disbursed, and provides for repayment if the laboratory abandons the project. Ypsilanti Township has no such protection.
Rep. Dingell is asking U-M and Los Alamos to publicly produce the agreement: its date, its signatories, whether it is legally binding, what legal authority permits the $300 million, whether DOE has approved it, what conditions must be met, whether it is contingent on site selection or environmental approvals, what happens if the project is delayed or cancelled, and who bears cost overruns.
One note to add. The Memorandum of Understanding between Los Alamos and the Regents, signed November 26, 2024, has been public since MEDC put it in its FOIA archive. Our analysis of that release is here. It is a framework agreement that authorizes no work and commits no money, and it locates the computing center near the University’s Ann Arbor campus. Whatever binding instrument exists, that is not it.
On local authority
The letter takes up the constitutional question directly. The University asserts that as a state constitutional institution it is exempt from ordinary local zoning and taxes, and Rep. Dingell writes that this legal question is central to the dispute. If a public university’s constitutional authority permits it to override local land-use decisions, she argues, the Michigan Legislature needs to decide whether that framework remains appropriate for projects of this size — and that it should not be settled project by project.
That’s the argument I’ve been making since the first page of this site, and it carries a great deal more weight coming from a member of Congress than from me.
She also notes legislation introduced by members of the Washtenaw delegation — Representatives Jason Morgan, Morgan Foreman, Carrie Rheingans, Jimmie Wilson and Jennifer Conlin — and urges state legislators to support it. The bill is Michigan House Bill 6264, the proposed Data Center Energy Standards Act. I support it, with amendments — my reading of the text is on that page.
The standards she is asking for
A lot of the letter is aimed well beyond this township, calling for federal and state guardrails on large-scale AI and data center development. The standards she lists will look familiar to anyone who’s been following this one:
- Large data centers, not residential ratepayers, pay for the generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure required to serve them
- Developers disclose projected electricity and water demand, and the sources of both
- Independently monitored, publicly reported water use, with a preference for closed-loop systems and enforceable consequences if actual use exceeds projections
- Independently measured, enforceable noise limits with baseline measurements
- Comprehensive environmental review covering water, air, stormwater, wetlands, wildlife, backup power, noise, traffic and cumulative impacts
- Emergency response planning developed with local officials
- Enforceable community benefit agreements with measurable commitments, established early
- No non-disclosure agreements
- Clear public accountability for which entity enforces each requirement
She also points to the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would require states to consider policies ensuring large-load customers bear the cost of the generation, transmission and distribution upgrades needed to serve them. She says she’ll support it while stating plainly that it’s nowhere near enough. As of this writing the vote hasn’t happened; I’ll note the outcome here when it does.
Every item on that list is something the University could commit to voluntarily, today, without waiting for Congress or Lansing.
What I’m asking for now
Three documents, every one of which already exists:
- The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the Textile Road site, and the Phase I that preceded it. The University told the State in 2024 that a Phase I had identified recognized environmental conditions. The community has never seen either report.
- The binding agreement with Los Alamos, if one exists beyond the November 2024 Memorandum of Understanding — with the date, signatories, and conditions Rep. Dingell lists.
- The current EPA and EGLE status of the site, including monitoring requirements, well locations, recent results, and any land use restrictions or environmental covenants.
The University held a second town hall on October 1 with the same panel. These are still good things to answer.
Source: letter from Rep. Debbie Dingell to Supervisor Brenda Stumbo and the Ypsilanti Township community, September 15, 2026, copied to University of Michigan President Domenico Grasso. Phase I environmental assessment language is from the University’s December 2024 application to the Michigan Strategic Fund; see the sources page. I’ve summarized the letter and quoted it only briefly — please read the original. If I’ve characterized anything unfairly, tell me and I’ll fix it and say that I did.
