They shouldn't be. IIRC, they're exempted from the energy act.

But y'know what's interesting? I just spotted some 3-way CFLs in a store the other day. Gotta try them out.

 

I thought all incandescent was on the chopping block.

 

No, far from it. PM coming.

 

50-100-150 3-way medium base bulbs are the most at risk for being put into the phaseout category since they have a full CFL equivalent.
Special variations, like a 15-135-150 for example, not so much.

3-way CFLs have been around for years and years... but they are inherently bad by principle - they produce a "grayed" light like dimmable fluorescents do at levels below full power. LEDs are the same.. they also lack the blackbody curve that makes the light redder (cooler) with increased dimming.

 

I like the 30-70-100 3-ways. One of the ones I spotted was, I think, an equivalent for that. I'll probably give it a try.

One popular misconception about the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is that it outlaws or prohibits certain types of bulbs. It doesn't. What it does is set efficiency standards, such as requiring that new light bulbs that produce between 750 and 1,049 lumens must use no more than 43 watts of power, for example. That particular requirement covers standard 60W incandescents because they typically put out about 800 lumens. The point is, though, that there's nothing that prohibits anyone from making and selling an incandescent light bulb that uses 43W or less. It's just that, given current technology, manufacturers find it easier (cheaper) to meet the standard with other technologies. GE did, and does, make an incandescent that nails the requirement, the 63003. It's expensive to buy and use, but it produces exactly 750 lumens with 43W. Every time I see one I wonder if they did it just to be able to say "so there" to the regulation. The trick, BTW, is that this incandescent is a halogen.

Another, related, misconception is that a light bulb can be "moved to the prohibited category." It cant be, of course, since there is no prohibited category. Plus, in this case, "[a] 3-way incandescent lamp" is one of the specifically listed exceptions. It will take an act of Congress, or at least of the bureaucracy, to make the existing act apply to 3-ways. There is the possibility that manufacturers will decide on their own to stop making them, or that the price will go way up, but nothing in the current law (yeah, I know) will force or drive that.

Anyway, even though I can, and do, still buy and use incandescent 3-ways. I think I'll pick up a CFL equivalent to try in the swing-arm floor lamp next to my living room chair. It'll be nice to have 3-way function again, instead of on-on-off-off. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye on the light quality. If I really don't like it, I'll just go back to a regular 3-way. Well, a Reveal 3-way.

 

Congress has been messing around with energy issues for over two decades and much of what they have mandated is of little importance in my opinion. Further, once they enact a piece of legislation it seems that within a year or two at the most there is further legislation significantly altering the intent of the previous legislation. For those two reasons I think that any discussion that states what may or may not happen in the future is nothing but speculation.

I understand the intent behind this kind of legislation, to reduce the insane growth in energy consumption in our country, but there are far better methods that can and should be used.

 

And if you are using dimmable cfls or LED's, why would you need three way bulbs? Only in Amerika.

 

Yes, dimmable bulbs are the way to go with mounted fixtures and wall controls. Only a 3-way bulb will give me 3 levels of light from one socket in my table and floor lamps. Not to mention the Mogul-base 100-200-300W in the lamp next to my wife's chair.