I think that assessing the effect of power factor -- like so many other topics in the CFL discussion -- is one that is better understood looking at where the technology is going than where it has been at least.
Projecting based on a projection of a projection of a projection (Mandated use of CFLs in the future --> Power factors in the future --> "sandbagging"
--> Electrical rates in the future) is trying to push a wet noodle.
In this usenet discussion of N:vision CFLs sold at Home Depot, it has been concluded that a long list of previous issues with CFLs have been sufficiently resolved for these CFLs to find widespread acceptance.
I started this extended discussion by introducing the n:vision lamps rather than some others because the price was such ($1.70-$2 each) that even the most persistent critics would probably not cavil about price and warranties (9 years).
There are of course, higher priced CFLs with even better specifications and performance -- They just haven't reached the price point of the n:vision CFLs.
For example, of the 20watt (75-watt equivalent) 2700K Technical Consumer Products (TCP) SpringLamp I introduced earlier the N:Vision CFL's discussion shows this interesting data:
PF >.90 THD .90 is impressive compared to the old data (the very worst to be found anywhere, I 'spect) that Dave chooses to cite above.
The power factor that I actually measured (using a kilowatt meter) ranged from 0.94-0.97 (!)
Similarly, the very fact that a distortion figure is listed on the package, and in TCP's technical data
Distortion and noise are parameters that is directly related to home automation because they are important in determining how "friendly" to X-10. INSTEON and other PLC technologies fluorescent lamps are or are not.
I presume that the 0.33 figure cited is 33% which is substantially less than the $150 cited for many other TCP CFL products.
I am out of time to do much more with the topic of CFLs until May.
Marc Marc_F_Hult