The other day, our random Obama To Do List included this promise: Barack Obama said he would "immediately" sign a law to phase out incandescent light bulbs.

"Immediately"?

For the record, incandescents are considered less energy efficient than the newer compact fluorescent bulbs, which tend to have a distinctive squiggly shape.

We searched bills in Congress and other databases to see if banning incandescent light bulbs was on the agenda. We couldn't find anything. And Obama can't sign a law if Congress hasn't passed it.

We figured light bulb reform was taking a backseat to the economy and larger energy initiatives like cap-and-trade (a promise we rated In the Works ).

As we dug into this item a bit more, though, we found some unusual wrinkles.

Obama made this promise in a speech on energy policy on Oct. 7, 2007. Perhaps light bulbs were on his mind, because just a few months before, he had voted in favor of a bill that called for increased efficiency standards on light bulbs. Roughly two months after Obama's speech, President George W. Bush signed the bill, now the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

The current law does not ban incandescents, but rather says most light bulbs must meet increased efficiency standards by 2012. The standards themselves, which were developed later, include several exceptions for incandescent light bulbs, including three-way bulbs, colored lights, bug lights or plant lights.

Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, which advocates for energy efficiency, said he thought Obama was referring to that law when he said he would phase out "all incandescent light bulbs." He noted that similar campaigns to increase efficiency standards have been promoted with the tag line "ban the bulb," even though they technically do not outlaw specific types of bulbs.

"He should have said, 'We want to get rid of the least efficient light bulbs,' " deLaski said.

If incandescent bulbs can meet new efficiency standards — and General Electric has been working on just such a project — there's no reason they should be banned, he said.

This all is interesting stuff, but it also left us scratching our heads over our ruling. Should we rate it Compromise because the existing law that Obama supported includes so many exceptions? Should we delete the item from the database since it was at least partly accomplished before Obama took office?

We're rating it No Action for now, because under the Obama administration, there's been No Action. We invite reader response on what the ultimate rating should be.