http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=194

"When it comes to saving money and growing our economy, energy efficiency isn't just low hanging fruit; it's fruit laying on the ground," said Secretary Chu. "The most prosperous, competitive economies of the 21st century will be those that use energy efficiently. It's time for America to lead the way."

Yes, ban consumers from buying what they want and applaud the savings!

Edison's simple safe light bulb is bought 19 times out of 20 in the USA.
The popularity is the reason to ban it: After all, that's why the savings are supposed to be so great,
no reason to ban what people don't want.
Think about it!

The fact is that efficiency regulation on a product sacrifices performance, construction, appearance and price features, and does not necessarily give the savings suggested anyway.

See  http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
onwards regarding the effect of efficiency regulation  on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products,
as in Waxman-Markey and other recent regulation proposals.

About saving energy =
Does society need to save energy? No, no shortage of electric energy sources...

As for saving "14 new coal-fired power plants":
Who is paying for the energy? The consumer.
Building a power station to serve consumers, is no better or worse than building a factory or shop to serve them.
Your like of a certain type of light bulb is no better or worse than your like of a certain shirt or loaf of bread - sure, varieties can be banned, but that leaves less choice.

About "saving lots of emissions banning bulbs" =
Does your bulb give out any gases?
Bans are unfair on emission-free households, now or in the future,
and emissions can be dealt with directly - as is planned anyway - by using new cleaner coal or renewable (or nuclear) energy

Also - Energy Secretary Steven Chu's lab was involved in developing the compact fluorescent light bulb, any clash of interest there?

Why a ban is wrong:
For a long list, with references, why a ban on ordinary light bulbs is wrong, see:
http://ceolas.net/#li1x onwards

.

Banning incandescent bulbs wouldn't be necessary if the public were well-informed and highly motivated.  Unfortunately, lots of people can't be bothered to lift a finger if they don't see an immediate, personal benefit. 

And there are a lot of people who are so focused on ideological purity that reality doesn't register.  We live in a cause-and-effect universe. What we believe "should" be right won't prevent the natural results of our actions from happening regardless of what thought should happen.

= certainly one not spewing emissions would be preferable

In fact I have  laid out how the waxman-markey bill could be much simpler just focusing on electricity and transport

= ceolas.net/#cc10x onwards

However, the point is that society doesn;'t actually need to save energy - and emissions can be dealt with directly

Put it this way, banning a combustion engine car stops emissions, banning bulbs does not, because they are not necessarily linked to emission release - for the very reason you give (non-emitting energy possibility)

1. Of course tmy entry was a bit tongue in cheek = I agree that it's good to lower emissions, though not necessarily cause of their CO2, rather their sulphur etc

2. However, re

"Banning incandescent bulbs wouldn't be necessary if the public were well-informed and highly motivated"

=  All lights have advantages - that's why they are on the market for people to choose = there is no "right" choice. The point is to deal with the emission problem itself. There is no need to save energy as there are plenty of alternatives, and no oil imports are used for electricity generation in the USA, so no energy security reason either for cutting use.

3. This is a ban for consumption - not usage safety - reason.

Therefore, if it was necessary to cut use (it isn't) then TAX would be much more logical.

Noone likes taxes, but here a light bulb tax  would be presented as a clear alternative to a ban

Tax lowers use, and gives government inciome that can be used towards emission lowering ( renewable energy etc projects or home insulation schemes etc) that lower emissions more than remaining light bulb use indirectly raises them

the rule is at the link below

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamps.html