No it's all about a general poor design and our federal government passing laws. Watts means heat displacement. The heat must go somewhere. On the older incandescents the heat was in the element. With CFL's the heat is in the electronic ballast located at the base of the socket.
Here is another unmentioned factor and likely the actual reason these bulbs catch fire more frequent than incandescents. Certain utilities in the past decade have raised the voltage entering the average home from what was once 110/220 to nearly now at 130/260 volts. The old transformer ballast could take that abuse better and could take voltage spikes and surges fairly well as could incandescents to a point. The CFL's are right on the margin of failure to start with since the electronics are confined and enclosed.
Most persons do not even have a clue as too what the voltage is in their home. The bulb in the picture in the article is rated at 120 volts. Most homes these days run well above 120 volts on a single circuit. Mine was 128/256 till I finally got my utility to put up a lower voltage transformer because I was sick and tired of replacing some very expensive items in my home. I feel sorry for anyone living near the substation using them. They likely have no clue as too why the darn things won't last.
Actually, many CFL’s have internal voltage regulation and are more tolerant of voltage variations that incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent bulbs are very sensitive to voltage verses lifespan. Raising the voltage 10% drastically reduces lifespan.
CFL’s are sensitive to spikes as you say (as in causing failure) but so are virtually all the other electronic devices you have in your home.
“Here is another unmentioned factor and likely the actual reason these bulbs catch fire more frequent than incandescents. Certain utilities in the past decade have raised the voltage entering the average home from what was once 110/220 to nearly now at 130/260 volts.”
May I ask why they do this. What benefit is it to the utility?