It may sound good to “only allow efficient products”.
Unfortunately, inefficient products may be popular for many other reasons, relating to
performance, appearance, construction, as well as cost, and sometimes the overall savings
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards

Put it this way, in regard to light bulbs:

Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights - or more efficient incandescents etc - are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Any government worried about say oil use can simply tax it
(and imported oil is not used in electricity generation).

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, heat factor etc with referenced research

About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).

Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2),
with a focus on transport and electricity:
ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative

Taxation is just another unjustified way of targeting light bulbs - but might be a compromise solution:

A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to supposedly reduce electricity consumption.

For those who favor bans, or who want to act quickly in targeting electricity consumption as well as production and distribution,
taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense, governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few dollars tax that reduces the current sales (USA like the EU 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

But the real deal is simply to supply energy as needed with whatever emisssion criteria is needed,
and let consumers use and pay for what they want, in their own homes.