Tim Kearney
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?
Yes. I am a co-sponsor of SB611 which is comprehensive legislation around PFAS classification and cleanup. This remains a grave issue in PA and I would support legislation to ban it in commercial products.
My team extensively researches this type of issue before we support, we’re firm beleivers in scientific reseasrch.
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?
The measles outbreaks in PA very concerning, particularly in Lebanon and Lancaster Counties. A major concern is that they are all preventable. The war on vaccines is real and we are seeing the consequences. We encourage vaccines as a major piece of public health. My district is quite diverse and we have been very active in the public health realm starting with vacine clinics during the pandemic and supporting the new Delaware County Health Department.
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?
On the appropriations committee, I have always supported funding for the UPenn New Bolton Center. They are our only large animal research center and their work on Avian Flu probably saved the industry in PA. Headwinds coming from DC has been making this difficult.
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?
It is obvious that we need to increase our clean energy portfolio. Solar is by far the most economical method of enenrgy production but the natural gas lobby is a formidable power here. We have been working with the PUC and PJM on getting more clean energy to our grid. We introduced legislation to require that GETs (Grid Enhancement Technology) is considered before any new power production is brought on line. Obviously, Data Centers are making all of this even more complicated. One thing we seem to agree on is that rate payers should not be shouldering the additional costs.
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?
The amount of energy and water that these centers require should not affect ratepayers. Data Centers must absorb the costs as a part of doing business. Environmental concerns must be considered. I support a waiting period where these questions must be answered before the development is allowed.