Now that the 2011 House is in session, members are lining up to co-sponsor a repeal of the Fred Upton “Too Much Heat, Not Enough Light” Incandescent Light Bulb Ban.

Except, heh-heh — you dunderheads — it’s not really a ban on incandescents, as a smarter-than-everyone-else reporter from The News & Record of Greensboro, NC explains:

GREENSBORO - U.S. Rep. Howard Coble is among those urging colleagues in Congress to turn off the lights on a controversial provision of the 2007 energy bill.

The Greensboro Republican is a co-sponsor of a bill to repeal what some refer to - erroneously - as the incandescent bulb ban….

The 2007 bill sets energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. It doesn’t specifically ban incandescent bulbs, but it would phase out the cheap, 50 cents-a-piece (22 cents-a-piece at Wal-mart - PC), single-filament model based on Thomas Edison’s century-old design.

The rationale behind the bill had to do with cutting down the energy Americans use by making lighting fixtures more efficient. Rather than ban possession or use of any one bulb, it prohibits retailers from selling the less energy-efficient models, phasing in the new rules between 2012 and 2014.

One of the most common complaints about the bill has to do with the cost of alternatives to the energy inefficient bulbs.

Newer incandescent bulbs that would meet energy efficiency guidelines can cost $8 or more at retailers such as the Home Depot or Amazon.com.

Got that? It’s not really a ban, except for retailers, and for people who want to pay 32 times what they used to pay for the Edison bulbs. So get over it.

Originally posted at American Spectator.