Sara Eggler
DemocraticQ1 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?
CDC Agency for Toxic Substances reports that these PFAS contain carbon-fluorine bonds that do not naturally break down in water, soil, or the human body, leading to permanent accumulation over time.
The EPA also reports exposure to these chemicals cause cancer, liver damage, hormone disruption, and weakened immune system.
KEYWORDS: Forever Chemicals, health risks, permanent accumulation, global contamination, cancer
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?
As a policymaker, my stance emphasizes the benefits of protecting children, school safety, & preventing avoidable outbreaks, by leading with transparent local data, partnering with trusted experts in the field, and emphasizing community protection.
I am actively advocating to improve local, rural healthcare funding & accessibility, which includes expanding vaccination education and outbreak response infrastructure.
KEYWORDS: Protecting Children, school safety, avoidable outbreaks, outbreak response infrastructure
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?
I support using personal protection equipment and implementing requirements with poultry & dairy herds to maintain written infection control plans, utilize respirators for high-risk tasks, gloves, coveralls, and eye protection. I also believe we need to implement a policy to adopt a tiered exposure categories in stages of high, medium, & low and match controls to mirror CDC’s admin control guidance and limit time & activities spent in high-exposure areas.
I also support the implementation of daily symptom checks & maintenance logs & an effort to create clear protocols. Mandating training on risks, PPE usages, reporting procedures which should be provided in all languages.
I feel agricultural employees should be required to complete these “continuing education programs”, when onboarding a new employee, and on an annual or every 2-yr basis.
KEYWORDS: PPE’s, infection control plans, symptom checks, protocols, mandated trainings
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 accelerating renewable energy sources and storage where the grid can actually use them, by modernizing siting rules with community benefit agreements / requirements. I support interconnection reform to fast track projects that relieve known PJM congestion areas in PA, as well as transparent interconnection timelines and fees for mid-scale solar and storage and targeted incentives for projects that pair renewables with grid storage.
By setting clear targets for emissions, reliability metrics, and portfolio shares that require utilities and PJM to show how their plans align.
KEYWORDS: Accelerate renewable energy, grid storage, targets, metrics, portfolio shares
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?
I support HB2150. However, I do not support the development of AI data centers unless Environmental Impact Reports and Community Impact Reports are mandated, so policymakers, municipalities, and residents have a full understanding of how these facilities affect local communities and natural resources. Developers should be responsible for 100% of the costs associated with these impact studies, administered through the DEP.
If developers can demonstrate that negative impacts can be eliminated or fully mitigated, I support policies requiring them to fund the infrastructure for their own energy generation and broadband capacity, rather than relying on public systems.
The full costs of development should remain 100% the responsibility of the developer, and they should also be required to pay an annual fee or tax to offset any ongoing negative impacts and replenish the ecosystem, environment, and community.
I also support collecting a fee for potential hazards, and developing mandates that require the developer to pay for potential, future federal clean-ups.
Power: Renewable energy sources should be prioritized to keep AI data centers off the public grid as well as storage of renewable energies. Water: Recycling and the use of grey and black water should be required before any withdrawal from rivers, streams, wells, groundwater, or public water systems. Septic pumpers could transport their black water to these sites and they should be required to pay for the filtration of the water prior to use.
HB2150 also proposes a $10,000 per day penalty for non‑compliance, which I support.
KEYWORDS: Impact Studies, negative impacts, developer responsibility 100%, HB2150, penalties, renewable energy, recycling grey & black water