Maria Peterson

Data centers are part of our growing digital economy, but their rapid expansion has outpaced the rules needed to protect residents, our electric grid, and our natural resources. I do not believe working families should see higher electric or water bills because a multibillion-dollar data center moves into their community. That is why I support a statewide framework that requires data centers to pay for the infrastructure and grid upgrades their enormous energy demands create, rather than shifting those costs onto residential ratepayers. Data centers should also be required to publicly report their energy and water use, meet strong energy-efficiency standards, and demonstrate that adequate water and electricity are available before a project moves forward. We also need meaningful standards addressing noise, environmental impacts, and proximity to homes, wetlands, farmland, and other sensitive areas. At the same time, I strongly believe in local control. The state should establish a minimum floor for consumer, environmental, and transparency protections, while local governments should retain authority over siting and be able to impose stronger requirements based on the needs of their communities. Local residents deserve to know what is being proposed before agreements are made—not after the decisions have already been made. I support many of the concepts contained in the POWER Act, and I am hopeful the General Assembly revisits that legislation and its proposed revisions during the veto session. Illinois needs comprehensive data center guidelines now, before additional development gets ahead of us again. I also support the Governor’s decision to pause new data center tax incentive agreements while the legislature develops those protections. The original incentive program resulted from bipartisan legislation passed in 2019 and signed by Governor Pritzker, at a time when the scale of today’s energy and water demands was not fully anticipated. We now have more information, and public policy should respond to that information. This issue is particularly important to me because I hosted a Data Center Forum in August with environmental advocates, labor, community activists, and a Lake County Board member. I wanted residents to hear directly from people with different perspectives and to separate facts from misinformation and disinformation. What became clear is that this cannot simply be a debate between being “for” or “against” data centers. It is about responsible development. My priority is protecting ratepayers. Data centers should pay the costs associated with the additional generation, transmission, substations, and other infrastructure necessary to serve them. I also support exploring a separate utility rate structure for extremely large energy users so residential customers are not subsidizing their operations. Illinois can benefit from technological investment and the jobs that come with it, but those benefits cannot come at the expense of families who are already struggling with utility bills. Growth should pay its own way, protect our natural resources, and provide a real benefit to the communities being asked to host it.

Scientific research may not be my area of expertise, but I strongly believe government has a responsibility to support research that improves people’s lives. Many of the medical advances we take for granted today began with publicly funded research. Research helps us prevent disease, find new treatments and cures, improve public health, and understand emerging threats before they become crises. I am concerned when federal funding decisions put that work at risk. Illinois is home to world-class universities, hospitals, national laboratories, and research institutions. Their work benefits patients and families, creates jobs, attracts investment, and strengthens our state’s economy. As a state legislator, I would advocate for Illinois’ congressional delegation to protect federal funding for the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and other critical research programs. At the state level, we should look for ways to protect important research when sudden federal cuts threaten work already underway. That doesn’t necessarily mean replacing federal funding with state dollars. I would first look at how Illinois can leverage existing resources and strengthen partnerships among universities, research institutions, health systems, foundations, and private industry. We should prioritize research that can improve people’s lives, particularly disease prevention, medical treatments, and public health. These investments can also save money over the long term. Preventing disease is better for families—and less costly to our health care system—than treating it after someone becomes seriously ill. I’ve always believed government works best when it looks ahead instead of waiting for a crisis and then trying to catch up. Scientific research is one of the ways we do that. Illinois should continue to be a place where research and innovation improve lives, create good jobs, and help build a healthier future.

Agriculture is one of Illinois’ greatest economic strengths, and protecting it means protecting the farmers, soil, and water resources that make it possible. I serve on the Board of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance specifically because I care deeply about the future of Illinois agriculture and am concerned about large corporate farming interests coming into our state, exploiting our rich soil and putting additional pressure on our aquifer systems. Once we damage those resources, we cannot easily get them back. Changing weather patterns make protecting those resources even more important. Illinois farmers are increasingly dealing with periods of drought, extreme heat, heavy rainfall, and flooding. I support policies that help farmers adapt to these conditions while keeping family farms economically viable. That includes supporting soil-health and conservation practices such as cover crops, crop rotation, reduced erosion, and responsible water management. Healthy soil retains more water during dry periods and absorbs more water during heavy rains. I also support agricultural research through our universities and Extension programs so farmers have access to the best science, technology, and information available to respond to changing growing conditions. Water must be part of this conversation as well. Illinois needs to better understand and protect its groundwater and aquifer systems, particularly as agriculture, communities, industry, and data centers place competing demands on our water supply. We should not allow any large corporate interest to deplete a resource that surrounding communities and future generations depend upon. I also want our policies to work for farmers, not simply impose new requirements on them. Farmers are often among the first to experience changes in weather and growing conditions, and they should be at the table when agricultural and conservation policies are developed. Whenever possible, we should provide incentives, technical assistance, and research that help farmers adopt practices that protect their land while maintaining productive and profitable farms. For me, this comes down to stewardship. Illinois has some of the richest farmland in the world and tremendous water resources. Our responsibility is to protect them so that Illinois agriculture—and the family farms and communities that depend on it—remain strong for generations to come.

I believe the best public policy is made when you bring the right people to the table, listen to the experts, examine the evidence, and also listen to the people who will actually be affected by the decisions we make. As an attorney, this process is not unfamiliar to me. My work has required me to research complicated issues, evaluate the credibility of information, ask questions, and understand different sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion. I would bring that same discipline to policymaking. Legislators cannot be experts on every scientific or technical subject, but we have a responsibility to seek out credible information, ask the right questions, and be willing to learn before making decisions. My Data Center Forum is a good example. As data centers began generating significant concern in our communities, there was also a great deal of misinformation and disinformation surrounding them. Rather than simply taking a position, I brought together environmental advocates, labor, community activists, and a Lake County Board member so residents—and I—could hear different perspectives on energy use, water, jobs, environmental impacts, and local control. That discussion helped reinforce my belief that Illinois needs statewide protections for ratepayers and natural resources while preserving a meaningful role for local communities in siting decisions. I took a similar approach with my Healthcare Forum. Health care policy affects patients, providers, hospitals, insurers, employers, and taxpayers, and you cannot fully understand the consequences of a policy by listening to only one of those groups. Bringing people with different experiences and expertise into the same conversation helps identify both the intended and unintended consequences of legislation. When evaluating scientific information, I want to know where the evidence comes from, whether it is supported by credible research, whether there is broad agreement among experts, and whether financial or other interests could influence the information being presented. I also think it is important to recognize the difference between established evidence and emerging research—and to be willing to say when we simply don’t know enough yet. That is how I would approach difficult issues in Springfield: do the research, bring scientists, experts, affected communities and other stakeholders to the table, ask questions, follow the evidence, and then make a decision based on what best serves the public. Good policymaking isn’t about pretending you already have every answer. It’s about doing the work necessary to make an informed decision.

The rise in measles and whooping cough cases should concern all of us, especially because children and medically vulnerable people can face the greatest consequences. We know vaccines have saved lives and prevented serious illness for generations. When diseases we once had largely under control begin coming back, we need to pay attention and act. This issue is personal to me in another way. I am a Rotarian, and Rotary has spent decades working toward the worldwide eradication of polio. That effort has helped bring the world incredibly close to eliminating a disease that once terrified families and left children paralyzed. No one wants to go back to a time when parents had to fear polio. Yet misinformation about vaccines threatens the progress we have made, and we have to take that seriously. This is exactly the kind of issue I wanted people talking about when I hosted my Healthcare Forum. Dr. Altshuler spoke about people not getting vaccinated and the repercussions we are now seeing, particularly for children. Our Lake County panelist also explained something I think is extremely important: the county helps uninsured and underinsured residents get the vaccinations they need. People need to know that help is available. Access matters, too. With changes and cuts to federal health programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, I am concerned about families falling through the cracks. If someone loses coverage, can’t find a provider, or simply cannot afford preventive care, vaccinations can get delayed. We need to make it easier—not harder—for people to protect themselves and their families. I am also proud that Illinois has taken steps to keep science at the center of our public health decisions at a time when confidence in federal public health leadership has been undermined. Illinois has joined the World Health Organization’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, giving our state access to international expertise and information about emerging disease threats. Illinois has also strengthened its own Immunization Advisory Committee and is relying on respected medical organizations and scientific evidence to guide our vaccine recommendations. As a legislator, that is the approach I will support. I will listen to epidemiologists, physicians, scientists, local health departments, schools, and the people working directly with families. I want to know where outbreaks are happening, why vaccination rates are falling, what barriers people are facing, and what the science tells us will actually work. I will also continue doing what I have already started doing: bringing experts directly into our communities. I believe strongly in public forums where people can ask questions, separate fact from misinformation, and learn where to go for help. If someone wants to protect their child but doesn’t have insurance or can’t afford a vaccination, we should be helping that family get access to one. For me, this is what public health should be about: good science, accurate information, access to care, and bringing people together to solve problems. We have already defeated or dramatically reduced diseases that once devastated families. We should be moving forward, not allowing misinformation or lack of access to take us backward.