James Julius
RepublicanQ1 PFAS chemicals are widely used in consumer products but have raised health concerns due to their persistence in the environment and humans, and some Pennsylvanian legislators are considering restrictions on its use, such as in House Bill 2145. Should Pennsylvania restrict PFAS in consumer products? What scientific evidence would you use to inform your decision?
Yes. I support the approach in HB 2145 to restrict intentionally added PFAS in products such as cosmetics, dental floss, and children’s products.
I would look at peer-reviewed health studies, Pennsylvania exposure data, and scientific reviews from the CDC and EPA. Research linking certain PFAS to kidney cancer and reduced immune response gives us reason to act. We should also consider how much exposure people actually receive and make sure replacement chemicals are safer.
Manufacturers need reasonable time to adjust, but uncertainty about every possible risk should not keep us from addressing the risks we already understand.
KEYWORDS: PFAS restrictions; Safer alternatives; Exposure risk
Q2 Measles vaccination rates in Pennsylvania have declined in recent years, from 95.5% in 2020 to 92.5% in 2025. At the same time, measles outbreaks have emerged across the state, with 62 confirmed cases in PA in 2026. As a policymaker, how do you approach engaging with communities that have concerns that center on infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, and what policies, if any, would you support related to these issues?
I would first ask why people are going unvaccinated. Is it a personal decision, a concern about safety, or difficulty getting an appointment or paying for care? Those call for different responses.
People deserve honest answers about vaccine benefits and risks, respect for their choices, and privacy in their medical care. I would work with local doctors and community leaders to answer questions and encourage measles vaccination.
If someone wants a vaccine but cannot afford it or reach a provider, government can and should help, especially during an outbreak. I support free or low-cost clinics, convenient hours, and mobile services where needed. I would measure whether those efforts actually reduce cost and access barriers.
Public health officials should provide timely exposure notices while protecting patients’ identities. We can help families protect themselves and their neighbors without publicly disclosing anyone’s medical decisions.
KEYWORDS: Individual choice; Vaccine access; Medical privacy
Q3 There have been avian influenza outbreaks in Pennsylvania, with potential impacts on poultry and dairy operations, both industries that provide billions of dollars of economic value to the state. What policies, if any, do you support to strengthen the state’s preparedness and outbreak response? Are there specific strategies you would prioritize to protect farm workers, agricultural communities, and the broader public?
Pennsylvania should be ready to move quickly when an outbreak threatens our farms. I support reliable funding for veterinary testing, disease monitoring, and response teams, with farmers involved in planning before a crisis hits.
My priorities would be fast test results, practical help keeping disease off farms, and protective equipment and training for workers handling potentially infected animals. Exposed workers should have prompt access to confidential testing and medical care.
Quarantines or animal movement restrictions should follow veterinary evidence, with clear conditions for lifting them. When government orders flocks destroyed, eligible farmers need timely compensation and a straightforward claims process. Delays can put a family farm out of business.
I would build on existing state, federal, and agricultural extension services, track response times and spending, and give the public clear updates about exposure and food safety. Protecting farms and public health is a legitimate government responsibility. It needs to be done competently, with respect for the people whose livelihoods are at stake.
KEYWORDS: Farm biosecurity; Worker protection; Targeted response
Q4 Pennsylvania is the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas and nuclear energy, as well as the third-largest producer of coal, per the Energy Information Administration. In contrast, PA currently ranks 45th in the country in terms of wind, solar, and hydropower energy production. How do you think these energy sources should be distributed across PA’s energy production portfolio, and what policies, if any, would you support to facilitate this?
I support an all-of-the-above strategy that significantly grows Pennsylvania’s energy production. We do not need to lead the country in every individual source to be the overall energy leader.
Natural gas, nuclear, coal, wind, solar, and hydropower should all have a place. I would judge projects by whether they deliver dependable, affordable power, meet environmental standards, and make economic sense. I would not set an arbitrary percentage for each source.
I support clear permitting deadlines, investment in transmission, upgrades to existing plants, and opportunities for new generation, including advanced nuclear. We also need to make it easier to connect viable projects to the grid while giving host communities a meaningful voice.
The goal is more available power, lower costs for families and employers, and enough capacity to attract new businesses without sacrificing reliability.
KEYWORDS: Energy abundance; Affordability; Grid reliability
Q5 Pennsylvania has proposed more reporting, utility oversight, and zoning guidance for large data centers, along with shifting some generation, capacity, and reliability costs onto data center developers rather than ordinary ratepayers. How should the costs and benefits of large data center development be divided between developers and the public, and what requirements, if any, would you support on power, water, and public reporting before a project moves forward?
Build the power first. Before a single block is laid for a large data center, developers should have the additional generation and grid infrastructure needed to serve it built, operating, and connected to the grid so the community benefits first. Then we can talk about the data center.
I build AI tools for a living. I understand the opportunity, but residents should not finance it through higher electric bills or reduced reliability. Developers should cover the added generation, transmission, and reliability costs their projects create, with enforceable financial commitments.
Before approval, I would also require a public water-use plan showing that the project will not compromise residents’ supply or shift infrastructure costs onto them. Power and water demand, tax incentives, and permanent job commitments should be disclosed publicly, with ongoing reporting and repayment provisions if subsidized promises fall short.
Meeting those conditions earns a proposal consideration. Local communities still deserve a meaningful say on location, noise, and whether the project belongs there.
KEYWORDS: Power first; Developer responsibility; Community benefit