So this is a California only thing, or nationwide?
Since CFL's do not produce nearly as much heat, are we stuck using expensive "reptile lightbulbs" as heaters?
Snopes has a small article about CFL's:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
I love how companies claim CFLs save energy. In reality, the fossil fuels and materials that are used to produce them cost more money and energy then households. This is a shame.
Full costs to manufacture, operate and safely dispose of a CFL have never been disclosed to the public, but the dangers are clear.
An International Association for Energy-Efficient Lighting (IAEEL) study conducted in Denmark, explored some carbon footprint factors, but not all, showing it took 1.8 Kwh of electricity to assemble a CFL compared to 0.11 Kwh to assemble an incandescent bulb. That means it took 16 times more energy to produce a CFL. The study did not include the fact that a CFL is much heavier and is more dangerous to handle, and will thus cost more to package, to ship, and to sell.
Plus, since they emit no heat, it will cause home heating costs to rise. Sure a single bulb in a room does not emit much heat, but when you take into account the millions upon millions of people using incandescent bulbs, it adds up.
People without electric furnaces will be forced to emit MORE pollution than before.