Testimony of Catharine Ferguson, Sierra Club DC Chapter
Committee on Transportation and the Environment Hearing
on B26-0361, the “Shine Safely Act of 2025”
Thursday, December 11, 2025
Committee Chair Allen, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this Committee on Transportation and the Environment Hearing on B26-0361, the “Shine Safely Act of 2025.” My name is Catharine Ferguson, and I am a member of the Sierra Club District of Columbia Chapter’s Clean Energy Committee. The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with millions of members and supporters. In DC, we represent about 7,000 residents across all eight wards.
The Sierra Club would like to thank you, Councilmember Allen, along with councilmembers Lewis George, Nadeau, and Pinto for co-introducing B26-0361 on September 22, 2025.
The Shine Safely Act will phase out the sale and distribution of toxic mercury-containing fluorescent lights in the District of Columbia, ensuring that as existing fluorescent lights reach the end of their lives, they will be replaced with energy-efficient and cost-effective LED lighting. This transition from fluorescent to LED lighting will protect DC residents from toxic mercury pollution, climate-warming greenhouse gases, and increasing electricity bills. For these reasons, ten states have already passed similar legislation, and 29 DC based organizations have signed on to support the Shine Safely Act. [1]
By design, all fluorescent lights contain toxic mercury. Whether bulbs or linear tubes, fluorescents are filled with mercury vapor that electrons energize to produce light.[2] Whenever a fluorescent lamp breaks–during transport, installation, use, removal, disposal or recycling–the mercury is released into the environment and then spreads. Mercury is a mobile toxin that travels through water and air, circulating for up to a year.[3] Because these lights are often used in settings such as hospitals,[4] schools, offices, and stores,[5] a broken fluorescent bulb or tube will expose large numbers of people to toxic mercury. If the light breaks during disposal, mercury can leak into trash trucks or trash transfer stations. Because mercury does not degrade, it accumulates in water, soil, and plants, permeating the ecosystem and entering the food chain.[6] Consequently, mercury threatens fish, birds, and mammals, including humans.
Human exposure to mercury–even in small amounts–can damage the nervous system, immune system, kidneys, and lungs, and may be fatal.[7] Children and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of mercury exposure, which can impair their cognitive, language, motor, and visual development.[8] Mercury exposure also negatively impacts human reproduction.[9] As a result of its harmful effects, the World Health Organization has identified mercury in its list of top ten chemicals of major public health concern.[10]
Fortunately, we can replace fluorescent lights with widely available, energy-efficient, and cost-effective LED lighting. LEDs are significantly more energy efficient than fluorescents, achieving 50-60% cost savings through reduced electricity use.[11] LEDs also last about three to five times as long as fluorescents, reducing maintenance costs as they need to be replaced less often.[12] While LEDs are slightly more expensive to purchase, their price continues to drop each year,[13] and their high efficiency quickly earns back these initial costs. LEDs then go on to produce significant savings through lower electric bills.[14] For instance, a typical school could save more than $5,000 in its annual electric bill if all its fluorescent bulbs were replaced with LEDs.[15] Passing the Shine Safely Act this year will reduce annual electricity bills by approximately $16 million in the year 2030. By 2050, the cumulative electricity cost savings will be $256 million.[16] In a time of escalating electric rates, passing the Shine Safely Act makes sense for residents, businesses and taxpayers.
Passing the Shine Safely Act will also help the District to mitigate and prepare for the effects of climate change. The high efficiency of LEDs means they require far less electricity and produce far fewer carbon emissions than fluorescents.[17] If the Shine Safely Act passes this year, by 2030, annual CO2 emissions will decrease by 19,000 metric tons, the equivalent of 252 tanker trucks of gasoline.[18] [19] Transitioning from fluorescents to LEDs will reduce the burden on our electric grid by 99 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, equivalent to the electricity use of nearly 14,000 homes.[20] [21] By 2050, that amount would rise to 1,502 gigawatt hours, enough electricity to power more than 210,000 homes for one year.[22] [23]
The benefits of the Shine Safely Act are clear for public health, cutting climate pollution, and countering rising utility bills.. This legislation will help protect District residents and taxpayers from toxic mercury pollution, climate threats, and escalating electricity costs. The Sierra Club DC Chapter urges the Council to quickly pass the Shine Safely Act.
In addition, we support DC B26-0106, the Ivy City Resilience Hub Eminent Domain Authority Act of 2025, to build a climate resilience hub in Ward 5. Larry Martin is giving the Sierra Club’s testimony on that legislation and the importance of replacing a local environmental justice and air quality hazard with a climate resilience hub.
Thank you Councilmember Allen for convening this hearing and for the opportunity to testify.
The Shine Safely Act of 2025
Statement of Support
The undersigned organizations urge the DC Council to pass the Shine Safely Act of
2025.This legislation will ban the sale of toxic mercury lighting in order to protect DC residents from the dangerous effects of the mercury used in all fluorescent lighting.[24] Mercury is a toxin that accumulates in the environment and living organisms, posing a serious threat to wildlife and humans.[25] Fortunately, fluorescent lighting can be replaced with widely available, energy-efficient, and cost-effective LED lighting. Yet fluorescent lighting is still frequently used in schools, offices, basements, and parking garages.[26] The District should eliminate the use of toxic fluorescent lighting to protect our health, safeguard the environment, conserve energy, and save money.
Health
Human exposure to mercury–even in small amounts–can damage the nervous system, immune system, kidneys, and lungs, and may be fatal.[27] Children and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of mercury exposure, which can impair their cognitive, language, motor, and visual development.[28] Mercury exposure also negatively impacts human reproduction.[29] As a result of its harmful effects, the World Health Organization has identified mercury in its list of top ten chemicals of major public health concern.[30] Ten U.S. states have already passed bills to end the sale and distribution of fluorescent lighting due to its toxic mercury content.[31]
Environment
Fluorescent lighting creates an environmental hazard when it breaks and releases mercury.[32] Because fluorescent lighting may break at any time during installation, use, transportation, storage, recycling, or disposal, the mercury in these products can contaminate a wide range of environments. Mercury is a mobile toxin that spreads through air, circulating for up to a year, and through water.[33] Once mercury settles, it does not degrade, but instead accumulates in water, soil, and plants, permeating the ecosystem and entering the food chain.[34] Consequently, mercury threatens fish, birds, and mammals, including humans.
Fluorescent lights used in homes and businesses have a widely available replacement: light emitting diode lights (LEDs). LEDs use approximately half as much electricity as fluorescent bulbs to produce the same amount of light.[35] As a result, accelerating the transition to LEDs can reduce planet-warming emissions from power plants, reduce demand on the electric grid, speed the transition to renewable power generation, and help prevent the worst effects of climate change.
Cost Savings
Replacing fluorescent lights with LEDs offers cost savings to families, businesses, and taxpayers. Because they are more energy efficient than fluorescents, LEDs cost less to operate, more than paying back their slightly higher upfront costs—which continue to drop each year—through lower electric bills.[36] A typical school could see more than $5,000 in annual utility bill savings if all its fluorescent bulbs were replaced with LEDs.[37] If the District passed a law in 2025 to phase out fluorescent lighting, we would save approximately $38.66 million on our utility bills by 2030.[38] LEDs also last about three to five times as long as fluorescents, so they need to be replaced less often.[39]
Equity
Fluorescent lighting creates particular hazards for workers required to remove, dispose of, or recycle these toxic products and for the communities located near disposal sites.[40] When fluorescent lighting breaks, it emits mercury that both circulates and accumulates in the local air, soil, and water.[41] The District’s trash transfer stations are located in Wards 5 and 7, where residents have suffered generations of environmental injustice. Mercury from fluorescent lighting could exacerbate this problem. By eliminating the use of fluorescent lighting, the District could reduce mercury exposure in these already overburdened communities.
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
Anacostia Park and Community Collaborative
Anacostia Riverkeeper
Center for Biological Diversity
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Citizens’ Climate Lobby - DC Chapter
Climate Reality Project
DC Environmental Justice Coalition
DC Environmental Network
DC Voters for Animals
Empower DC
Food & Water Watch
Green America
Green New Deal for DC
Greenpeace USA
GRID 2.0
GRID Alternatives, Mid-Atlantic
Honeydew Energy Advisors
League of Women Voters of DC
Interfaith Power & Light (DC.MD.NoVA)
Moms Clean Air Force, DC Chapter
Rachel Carson Council
SEIU 32BJ
Sierra Club DC Chapter
Third Act DC
Ward 8 Woods Conservancy
Washington Teachers’ Union
We Power DC
Young, Gifted and Green
[3] Teng and Altaf, “Elemental mercury (Hg0) emission, hazards, and control: A brief review,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, no. 5, (February 2022).
[6] Eagle-Smith et al. “Modulators of mercury risk to wildlife and humans in the context of rapid global change,” Ambio, no. 47, at 170-197 (January 2019).
[9] Henriques et al. “Exposure to mercury and human reproductive health: A systematic review,” Reproductive Toxicology, no. 85, at 93-103 (April 2019).
[15] Amann, Fadie, Mauer, Swaroop, and Tolentino, Farewell to Fluorescent Lighting: How a Phaseout Can Cut Mercury Pollution, Protect the Climate, and Save Money, at 18 (2022).
[18] Equivalencies were determined using the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
[21] Equivalencies were determined using the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
[23] Equivalencies were determined using the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
[24] https://www.newmoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Mercury-Use-in-Lighting-2018.pdf
[25] https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/mercury
[26] https://environmentamerica.org/articles/saying-farewell-to-fluorescents/
[27] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
[28] World Health Organization, “Children’s Exposure to Mercury Compounds” (February 10, 2010).
[29] Henriques et al. “Exposure to mercury and human reproductive health: A systematic review,” Reproductive Toxicology, no. 85, at 93-103 (April 2019).
[30] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
[31] https://appliance-standards.org/clean-lighting
[32] https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mercuryexposure_fluorescentbulbs_factsheet.pdf
[33] Teng and Altaf, “Elemental mercury (Hg0) emission, hazards, and control: A brief review,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, no. 5, (February 2022).
[34] Eagle-Smith et al. “Modulators of mercury risk to wildlife and humans in the context of rapid global change,” Ambio, no. 47, at 170-197 (January 2019).
[35] Amann, Fadie, Mauer, Swaroop, and Tolentino, Farewell to Fluorescent Lighting: How a Phaseout Can Cut Mercury Pollution, Protect the Climate, and Save Money, at 18 (2022).
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid, 29.
[38] Calculated by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.
[39] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/led-lighting
[40] https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mercuryexposure_fluorescentbulbs_factsheet.pdf;
Brooks and Matos, “Mercury Recycling in the United States in 2000,” U.S. Geological Survey, (2005).
[41] Gworek, Dmuchowski, and Baczewska-Dąbrowska, “Mercury in the terrestrial environment: a review,” Environmental Science Europe, 32, 128 (2020).