Compact and linear fluorescent lighting is still being sold and installed. But US States and Canada are beginning to ban the sales of these products due to their mercury content and the environmental hazard the destruction of these technologies can cause. LED lighting is now widely available and cost-effective as a replacement for fluorescent bulbs. LEDs much more energy efficient, last longer, and don’t contain mercury.
These bans can have an effect on utility commercial lighting rebate programs. A utility can take a view that since a less efficient alternative is no longer available, why should they incentivize LED products. Its not actually that straightforward, so we will cover information about the state bans as well as the impact on utility rebates.
| State | CFL-Screw | CFL-Pin | Linear Tube | Rebate Impact | Coverage |
| California | 1/1/2024 | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2025 | ||
| Colorado | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2025 | ||
| Hawaii | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2026 | 1/1/2026 | ||
| Illinois | 1/1/2026 | 1/1/2027 | 1/1/2027 | Utility rebates are expressly permitted for banned products | Article |
| Maine | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2026 | 1/1/2026 | ||
| Minnesota | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2026 | 1/1/2026 | ||
| Oregon | 1/1/2024 | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2025 | ||
| Rhode Island | 1/1/2024 | 1/1/2025 | 1/1/2025 | ||
| Vermont | 2/17/2023 | 1/1/2024 | 1/1/2024 | ||
| Washington | 1/1/2029 | 1/1/2029 | 1/1/2029 | Article | |
| Canada | 1/1/2026 | 1/1/2028 | 1/1/2028 |
The ban language typically looks something like "[After some date] a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer may not knowingly sell a compact fluorescent lamp or linear fluorescent lamp." Many also have language for existing stock - "In-state distributors, wholesalers, and retailers in possession of compact fluorescent lamps or linear fluorescent lamps on [date], may exhaust their existing stock through sales to the public until [date]"
For utility rebate programs there are two school of thought. One is that since fluorescent will not longer available, those applications where LED is then the only remaining technology don't need incentives to cause energy savings so rebates end in those situations. We are seeing that play out in Vermont, where non-fluorescent applications are still rebate-able. (The major California utilities don't have LED rebates, but that is more complicated California story). The 2nd school of thought is that incentives for LEDs are still required to get buildings to move more quickly. Many buildings may wait till burnout or may have on-site stock piles of fluorescent replacements, so the incentives will remain to encourage early replacement. Illinois has gone as far to say the utilities may continue to claim energy savings against their mandated goals for replacing fluorescent after the ban begins.
We will continue to monitor and update this page as state continue to explore these fluorescent bans.