Starting July 2028, the EPA will be expanding the lumens per watt requirement from 40lpw to 120lpw, and no longer exempting fluorescent lamps from the rules.

Unless Congress does something, of course.

Unfortunately it looks most conventional light sources would fall under this and even some LED lamps won't fulfill that criteria. Unfortunately this will encourage manufacturers to phase out conventional lighting products and even with LEDs probably phase out the higher CRI ones in favour of lower CRI (70-90) LED...which don't look as nice as the higher CRI products.

In Canada I believe they are looking to ban fluorescent lamps by 2030, using mercury content as the reason to ban them.

I don't believe the DOE rule that goes into effect in 2028 applies to anything other than the screw-based general service lamps that are currently required to achieve an efficacy of 45 lpw today.  Linear fluorescent and HID have separate regulations, but screw-based CFLs would be considered GSLs and prohibited by this rule.

This seems to contradict our Dear Leader's love for old and inefficient technologies, as he specifically attempted to reverse bans on incandescent lamps and high-flow bathroom fixtures.

In that case, would pin based CFL lamps have a separate category like the linear tubes and non-linear fluorescent lamps like circlines and u bends?

So far, I have been aware that a few US States such as California, Vermont, Hawaii, Oregon, Minnesota, and a few others have already enacted general lighting fluorescent bans. Interestingly, here in California, despite the fluorescent ban, I have still seen fluorescent ballasts and starters still being sold in hardware stores.

they have been banned here in europe since 2023. But you can still get your hands on them lol. I have a huge stash at home, so I think I will be good for the foreeable future.

In that case, would pin based CFL lamps have a separate category like the linear tubes and non-linear fluorescent lamps like circlines and u bends?

Yes, they are in a different category. Current definitions exempt pin-base, fluorescent, HID, and other unusual lamps from efficiency requirements.
I think what will happen is they will expand the LPW requirement and amend the definitions to include fluorescent lamps.

The ban only applies to lamps, not ballasts and other necessities. Which means that here in Oregon, in 2026, I can still go to Home Depot and buy a brand-new fluorescent fixture.

I also find it funny that they are focusing so heavily on banning light bulbs, while I can just go to another isle and buy an electric baseboard heater.
These cost much more to operate than pretty much any heat pump or natural gas furnace.

I honestly don't know why they'd even bother banning fluorescent at this point. Its a quickly dieing technology as it is. With whats got to now be the majority of businesses (and likely homes) already having converted to LED, its only a matter of time before manufacturers quit producing fluorescent - simply because lack of a market for it.

electric baseboard heater. These cost much more to operate than pretty much any heat pump or natural gas furnace.

Oh don't worry... they'll be coming for those natural gas furnaces & water heaters next.
Infact some cities and states have or are working on natural gas bans.
For example Denver passed a ban on gas powered heating in new construction commercial & large apartment development (so not homes..yet) and along with it for existing buildings a mandate that replacement heating systems must be fully or partially electric. Boulder has done the same, but also includes new homes larger than 3000 square feet.
These various bans/laws are ofcourse being challenged in court, so has yet to see what all be implemented.

This seems to contradict our Dear Leader's love for old and inefficient technologies, as he specifically attempted to reverse bans on incandescent lamps and high-flow bathroom fixtures.

Your reply makes you sound like a condescending, partisan idiot. Just saying... I don't exactly agree with his policies, but I also don't treat his every word with derision and certainly don't call him 'Dear Leader'...

Your reply makes you sound like a condescending, partisan idiot. Just saying... I don't exactly agree with his policies, but I also don't treat his every word with derision and certainly don't call him 'Dear Leader'...

I'm sorry, that was done in jest. I hardly ever call him names such as "Dear Leader", but I occasionally do use such names on occasions such as this when the decisions made by his cabinet and administration seem to contradict what he promised on the campaign trail (IE letting citizens choose what they want to use without government dictating what can and can not be used, such as promising to reverse the ban on incandescent lamps).

> I don't exactly agree with his policies, but I also don't treat his every word with derision

Neither do I, but a lot of the stuff he says is just simply not true, like his stance that Tylenol causes autism, when this has been disproven time and time again by the scientific community.

Anyways, I still do not want this to happen, and I hope that something ends up being done about it, whether that is done by the Man himself or someone else.