Marty Young
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?
Pennsylvania should take a science-based approach to restricting PFAS in consumer products where safer alternatives exist. These “forever chemicals” pose real long-term risks to public health and our environment.
As a corporate turnaround executive, I’ve seen how companies can innovate when given clear standards and timelines. I would support targeted restrictions on non-essential uses while protecting critical applications in defense, healthcare, and manufacturing. Decisions should be guided by peer-reviewed science, risk assessments from agencies like the EPA and PA DEP, and input from affected industries and communities. We must protect families without unnecessarily harming jobs or innovation in Pennsylvania.
KEYWORDS: PFAS
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?
Declining measles vaccination rates reflect a breakdown in public trust. As a 30-year Army veteran who received over 50 vaccinations — including some containing thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative — I understand both the value of vaccines and why many parents have concerns.
The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act created a moral hazard by granting manufacturers near-total liability protection. This reduced accountability and contributed to skepticism. We should reform the Act to restore proper incentives, increase transparency around ingredients and adverse events, and emphasize informed consent over mandates.
Rebuilding trust requires honesty about both the benefits and limitations of the current system.
KEYWORDS: Vaccine accountability, thimerosal, informed consent, public trust
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 must strengthen its preparedness and rapid response capabilities for avian influenza. This is both a public health issue and an economic one for our poultry and dairy industries.
I would support increased funding for surveillance, faster testing and reporting systems, and better coordination between state agencies, farmers, and federal partners. Protecting farm workers and agricultural communities should be a priority through proper protective equipment, training, and compensation support during outbreaks.
We also need stronger biosecurity standards and investment in research for better vaccines and containment strategies. A proactive, science-driven approach protects both public health and Pennsylvania’s agricultural economy.
KEYWORDS: Biosecurity, agricultural preparedness, rapid 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?
Pennsylvania should maintain a diverse, all-of-the-above energy portfolio that includes our strong natural gas and nuclear industries while expanding clean, reliable options — particularly home-based geothermal and solar.
I strongly support restoring tax incentives for homeowners who install solar and geothermal systems. Geothermal is especially valuable because the technology can last well over 100 years, significantly reduces stress on the electric grid, and delivers major long-term savings on energy costs for families.
Additionally, to accelerate adoption across Pennsylvania, I would create zero-interest loan programs to help homeowners and small businesses install geothermal systems. This approach strengthens energy independence, lowers household costs for generations, and helps modernize our grid in a way that benefits families rather than burdening ratepayers.
KEYWORDS: Geothermal, Solar
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?
Pennsylvania ratepayers are currently subsidizing data center growth in Virginia through the structure of PJM, the regional grid operator. Because of how transmission and capacity costs are allocated across the PJM footprint, Pennsylvania families are helping pay for the massive electricity infrastructure and “super grid” needed to power data centers in Virginia — the data center capital of the world.
Many of these facilities have deep connections to federal government contracts, meaning Pennsylvania households are effectively being taxed to support out-of-state infrastructure. We need to reform PJM’s cost allocation rules so that large data centers and the entities driving explosive new demand pay their full share of costs, rather than shifting them onto Pennsylvania ratepayers. Any data centers built in Pennsylvania should also be required to cover their complete infrastructure, power, and water costs upfront, with strong transparency and local oversight.
KEYWORDS: PJM reform, ratepayer protection, data center costs