United States Senate reintroduced Sunshine Protection Act, enabling Permanent DST

I don't quite understand the legal text of the bill itself [2], but according to my reading, it seems like the bill will end DST across the entire US by shifting the standard time forward an hour, except in states/territories/area that currently doesn't enact DST, which they can choose to follow the new standard time or old standard time? 1: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/3/rubio-colleagues-reintr... 2: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d34c77c0-acea-4074-bc57-14d...

Phake Nick via tz said:
I don't quite understand the legal text of the bill itself [2], but according to my reading, it seems like the bill will end DST across the entire US by shifting the standard time forward an hour, except in states/territories/area that currently doesn't enact DST, which they can choose to follow the new standard time or old standard time?
That's how I read it. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646

"Clive" == Clive D W Feather via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
I don't quite understand the legal text of the bill itself [2], but according to my reading, it seems like the bill will end DST across the entire US by shifting the standard time forward an hour, except in states/territories/area that currently doesn't enact DST, which they can choose to follow the new standard time or old standard time?
There's gonna be a lot of people missing their flights someday soon. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Dart/Flutter consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. Still trying to think of something clever for the fourth line of this .sig

Randal L. Schwartz via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote on Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 00:43:01 EDT in <86tup2a3ai.fsf@red.stonehenge.com>:
There's gonna be a lot of people missing their flights someday soon. :)
Since there may be confusion on this point, and humor doesn't always carry well in email, I think it's worth emphasizing: Introduction of a bill doesn't necessarily mean that a law is especially likely to arise from it. It can range anywhere on a proverbial scale of 1 to 10 from 1 being "meaningless political posturing" to 10 being "virtually certain to pass." I would gues this bill is about a 2 or 3 on that scale. It's certainly something we should be aware of, but I doubt it is likely to come to fruition any time soon. (On the other hand, trying to predict what legislators will do is often unwise. They have great power that can be used in unexpected ways and they can pass bills far faster than their median time if they choose to do so.) The Senate version of this bill is S.623, but its text has not yet been formally submitted: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/623 This House version of the bill has been assigned number H.R.69 and is probably best tracked at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/69/actions although I understand https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr69 is quite popular. Amusing quote from the latter: Prognosis: 1% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs This bill has a 1% chance of being enacted. Factors considered: The bill's primary sponsor is a Republican. The bill is assigned to the House Energy and Commerce committee. The bill's primary subject is Science, technology, communications. (Factors are based on correlations which may not indicate causation.) -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson

On 2021-03-23 Tue 14:08, John Hawkinson <jhawk@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
Amusing quote from the latter: Prognosis: 1% chance of being enacted according to Skopos Labs This bill has a 1% chance of being enacted. Factors considered: The bill's primary sponsor is a Republican. The bill is assigned to the House Energy and Commerce committee. The bill's primary subject is Science, technology, communications. (Factors are based on correlations which may not indicate causation.)
According to my understanding, this prediction is based on the fact that the House and Senate are currently controlled by a different party from main members of those who submit the bill, and as that controlling party often disagree with the interpretation and in past often reject issues raised by the opposing party on the matter of Science Technology, and Communications, the bill jave low chance to pass. But I don't think Permanent Daylight Saving Time is the sort of traditional technology and science and communication themed bill that Democrats must opppse Republican proposals.

Today's Washington Post carries a story, various headlined "As the end of daylight saving time nears, a House bill to make it permanent has collapsed" and also "Clock runs out on efforts to make daylight saving time permanent," by Dan Diamond. I am surprised it merited a push notification, but it did. Anyhow, it looks like the prospects for this bill to change daylight savings in the US are quite bleak. Here is an allegedly paywalled-free link https://wapo.st/3TajkJo (via WaPo's "gift article" mechanism) Of course technically the bill could still pass during the lame-duck period after mid-term elections, but story handicaps that as extremely unlikely. -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu John Hawkinson

On 11/4/22 15:38:38, John Hawkinson via tz wrote:
Today's Washington Post carries a story, various headlined "As the end of daylight saving time nears, a House bill to make it permanent has collapsed" and also "Clock runs out on efforts to make daylight saving time permanent," by Dan Diamond. ... <https://wapo.st/3TajkJo> Why?
Would that apply throughout the United States, including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Arizona? Would tm_isdst be set uniformly? Would regions wanting light on winter mornings be allowed to select a more westerly time zone with approval of the Secretary of Transportation? Would it happen precipitously in 2024 causing maximum confusion about poll closing time with electronic devices not updated? -- gil

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 16:16:04 -0600 From: Paul Gilmartin via tz <tz@iana.org> Message-ID: <69e927e4-aa02-553a-c070-6ab97835c00c@AIM.com> | Why? Why what? Why did time run out? Why was the bill proposed in the first place? Why would you expect anyone here to be able to answer those, or any similar question, I don't think we have any list members who have any crystal balls here. | Would that apply throughout the United States, including Hawaii, | Puerto Rico, and Arizona? Again, this is not really the appropriate source for proposed US legislation, but as I recall what was mentioned earlier, yes, but (see below) | Would tm_isdst be set uniformly? If there is only one standard time for a zone, then yes, it would be set uniformly, to 0 for that zone - just the same as any other zone that has no seasonal time shifts. But with no actual legislative changes being made, speculating on what would happen is just that, speculation. But note that calling it "permanent daylight saving" is just a way of communicating to the great uneducated what the time would end up being, not any kind of requirement that tm_isdst==1 is required. | Would regions wanting light on winter mornings be allowed to select | a more westerly time zone with approval of the Secretary of Transportation? That was my understanding, yes. | Would it happen precipitously in 2024 causing maximum confusion about | poll closing time with electronic devices not updated? How can you possibly expect anyone here to answer that? Go speak to someone who knows what is, or could, possibly happen, or just read the published information, like everyone else does. kre

Robert Elz replied to Paul Gilmartin:
just read the published information, like everyone else does.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/623 -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org

So supposedly a majority of people don't want to change back and forth every year, but there is a split where one group wants to stick with DST year round and the other group wants to stick with Standard Time year round. Maybe we should compromise on the halfway point between the two. :) We could join Newfoundland (only one in NA) with non integral UTC offsets. John On 11/4/2022 11:19 PM, Doug Ewell via tz wrote:
Robert Elz replied to Paul Gilmartin:
just read the published information, like everyone else does. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/623
-- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org

John Marvin via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
So supposedly a majority of people don't want to change back and forth every year, but there is a split where one group wants to stick with DST year round and the other group wants to stick with Standard Time year round.
... and neither group is old enough to remember the last time we abolished DST. regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
... and neither group is old enough to remember the last time we abolished DST.
I'm definitely not old enough to remember the last time the US abolished nationwide DST, which I guess would have been right after World War II. OTOH, I do remember the mid-'70s experimentation with making DST permanent. That was not pretty. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org

Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> writes:
OTOH, I do remember the mid-'70s experimentation with making DST permanent. That was not pretty.
Yeah, sorry, that was the one I meant. But I think never-DST would founder on the same rocks as permanent-DST did. regards, tom lane

On 2022-11-07 2:29 PM, Doug Ewell via tz wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
... and neither group is old enough to remember the last time we abolished DST. I'm definitely not old enough to remember the last time the US abolished nationwide DST, which I guess would have been right after World War II.
OTOH, I do remember the mid-'70s experimentation with making DST permanent. That was not pretty.
PUBLIC LAW 93-182-DEC. 15, 1973 To provide for daylight saving time on a year-round basis for a two-year trial period, and to require the Federal Communications Commission to permit certain daytime broadcast stations to operate before local sunrise https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/93/182.pdf PUBLIC LAW 93-434-OCT. 5, 1974 To amend the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act of [H. R. 16102] 1973 to exempt from its provisions the period from the last Sunday in October, 1974, through the last Sunday in February, 1975. https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/93/434.pdf The cautionary tale about "permanent DST". How would the TZDB rule sets best handle this if the Sunshine Protection Act passed as currently written? -Brooks
-- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org

On 11/7/22 11:50:46, Tom Lane via tz wrote:
John Marvin via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
So supposedly a majority of people don't want to change back and forth every year, but there is a split where one group wants to stick with DST year round and the other group wants to stick with Standard Time year round.
... and neither group is old enough to remember the last time we abolished DST.
What advantage does "permanent DST" offer a region over simply moving to Standard Time of one zone further east, which would not require Congress to act? Conversely, if "permanent DST" is enacted by Congress, a state adversely affected should continue to be allowed to move one zone further west. State (and regional) freedom of choice should remain. In any case, people will, gradually, adjust their schedule of activity to match the sun. -- gil

Paul Gilmartin wrote in <ea855aca-44f4-b894-cff5-da94f6a76a55@AIM.com>: |On 11/7/22 11:50:46, Tom Lane via tz wrote: |> John Marvin via tz <tz@iana.org> writes: |>> So supposedly a majority of people don't want to change back and forth |>> every year, but there is a split where one group wants to stick with DST |>> year round and the other group wants to stick with Standard Time year |>> round. |> |> ... and neither group is old enough to remember the last time |> we abolished DST. | |What advantage does "permanent DST" offer a region over simply moving to But no, it is all psychological, man! Imagine -- last week or so i even saw a scientific study abstract fly by which wanted to convey the impression that there is a difference in between real sunlight and the good bulb, neon or LED lights? 1200 Lux i think German workers have to have, isn't that sufficient??? (I have not read it, it was that aggressive modern times teaser that was saying this. Mind you -- i am out _whenever_ i can.) Having said that, US has DST permanently for over 120 years, has it, and it was no good for climate nor environment, no matter how many fingers they point somewhere else. If it is all psychological. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

<<On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 13:12:04 -0700, Paul Gilmartin via tz <tz@iana.org> said:
What advantage does "permanent DST" offer a region over simply moving to Standard Time of one zone further east, which would not require Congress to act?
It solves the collective action problem. Moving one zone to the east is only practical (and would only be approved by USDOT) if a state's regional trading partners and commutersheds did so as well, and every region has some likely holdouts. Congress can do it (theoretically) for every state at once by majority vote, which would be much easier. Note that this is by and large an Eastern Time issue, due to the population, longitudinal extent, and media salience of the zone. -GAWollman

"Paul" == Paul Gilmartin via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
Paul> What advantage does "permanent DST" offer a region over simply moving to Paul> Standard Time of one zone further east, which would not require Congress Paul> to act? More directly, what advantage does "permanent DST" offer over simply getting up an hour earlier, getting off work an hour earlier, and enjoying more time in the evenings? You don't need the clocks to change for that. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Dart/Flutter consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. Still trying to think of something clever for the fourth line of this .sig

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 07:30, Randal L. Schwartz via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
More directly, what advantage does "permanent DST" offer over simply getting up an hour earlier, getting off work an hour earlier, and enjoying more time in the evenings? You don't need the clocks to change for that.
Because I want my neighbours to also enjoy "more time in the evenings". It is for their own good, they will thank me for it later. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane

On Mon 2022-11-14T09:44:38+0800 Sanjeev Gupta via tz hath writ:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 07:30, Randal L. Schwartz via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
More directly, what advantage does "permanent DST" offer over simply getting up an hour earlier, getting off work an hour earlier, and enjoying more time in the evenings? You don't need the clocks to change for that.
Because I want my neighbours to also enjoy "more time in the evenings". It is for their own good, they will thank me for it later.
Discussions on this topic rapidly resemble a C.M. Kornbluth story from 1951 and we have to invoke Godwin's Law. -- Steve Allen <sla@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB 260 Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m

On 11/13/22 18:44:38, Sanjeev Gupta via tz wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 07:30, Randal L. Schwartz via tz <tz@iana.org <mailto:tz@iana.org>> wrote:
More directly, what advantage does "permanent DST" offer over simply getting up an hour earlier, getting off work an hour earlier, and enjoying more time in the evenings? You don't need the clocks to change for that.
Because I want my neighbours to also enjoy "more time in the evenings". It is for their own good, they will thank me for it later.
It doesn't work. There's scriptural evidence, Matthew 20:1-16 KJV, that in the past four centuries clocks have been advanced six hours. People accommodated, not by getting up six hours astronomical time earlier, but by getting up six hours clock time later. -- gil

I have purposefully started work early so that my day ended earlier for
over a decade. If the whole world did that I would actually lose some of the advantages. I go in before morning commutes, and leave work before evening commute. On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 3:30 PM Randal L. Schwartz via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
More directly, what advantage does "permanent DST" offer over simply getting up an hour earlier, getting off work an hour earlier, and enjoying more time in the evenings? You don't need the clocks to change for that. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Dart/Flutter consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. Still trying to think of something clever for the fourth line of this .sig

On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 03:18:50PM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz via tz wrote:
"Paul" == Paul Gilmartin via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
Paul> What advantage does "permanent DST" offer a region over simply moving to Paul> Standard Time of one zone further east, which would not require Congress Paul> to act?
More directly, what advantage does "permanent DST" offer over simply getting up an hour earlier, getting off work an hour earlier, and enjoying more time in the evenings? You don't need the clocks to change for that.
I think the point is that people on a strict schedule, like teachers and industry workers stuck in front of the assembly line, also will be able to suffer the dubious benefit of the change. /MF

<<On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 15:18:50 -0800, "Randal L. Schwartz via tz" <tz@iana.org> said:
More directly, what advantage does "permanent DST" offer over simply getting up an hour earlier, getting off work an hour earlier, and enjoying more time in the evenings?
It's a collective-action problem. Most of the benefits aren't realized unless most people comply with the change, and changing "legal time" is the simplest way to do that. Doing so also helps with contracts and outdoor signage, two things that are more difficult or expensive to alter. -GAWollman

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 18:16, Paul Gilmartin via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
Would that apply throughout the United States, including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Arizona?
My understanding of the "state exemption" provision in the bill would be that Arizona, Hawaii, and the various territories would — by nature of having currently "exempted" themselves from the DST provisions of the Uniform Time Act — get to choose whether to jump ahead or stay put, while everyone else in the continental US would be obligated to advance their standard time. On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 21:36, Robert Elz via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
Why did time run out? Why was the bill proposed in the first place?
Time has "run out", in a sense, because the current (117th) session of Congress will be drawing to a close on 3 January 2023 and, after tomorrow's elections, will effectively be in "lame duck" status. Of course, this bill was functionally identical to S.670 of the previous (116th) Congress, which Senator Rubio also introduced in 2019: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/623/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/670/text Similar bills have come up in Congresses past for years, and I have little doubt that something similar will be proposed in the next one. So in that sense, there really is no news here. But that's because typically, these bills don't make it out of committee. And there really weren't any indications that it had much of a better chance this time, which is why it was so surprising when it passed the Senate, almost unnoticed, by unanimous consent on 15 March 2022. That's undoubtedly a big part of what has driven the extra media attention this time around: It's genuinely the closest any effort to abolish the seasonal changes has gotten in the US in a long while. Unfortunately, a decent chunk of the recent reporting has been confusing — I've seen a handful of relatively knowledgeable folks who seem to assume that the bill was passed into law and that the US just "fell back" for the last time, when that is not in fact the case under current law. On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 11:34, John Marvin via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
So supposedly a majority of people don't want to change back and forth every year, but there is a split where one group wants to stick with DST year round and the other group wants to stick with Standard Time year round.
I suspect that's a major reason these proposals don't tend to gain much traction. While Sen Rubio's Florida could certainly economically benefit from year-round DST, any given zone is large enough that the seasonal effects and concerns in other places might as well be completely different. I can't remember where exactly I read it — DST think-pieces are a dime a dozen this time of year — but I recently saw a stat that around 60% of US residents favored abolishing the seasonal time change but, of that group, about half favored year-round daylight time while around one-third favored year-round standard time, with the rest undecided. If we believe those rough numbers, that would yield the following totals, which are frustratingly pleasing (or, I suppose, pleasingly frustrating): 40% seasonal switches / status quo 30% year-round daylight time 20% year-round standard time 10% year-round something, undecided Personally, I'd love to see, say, a "longitudinal" study (heh) which geographically plots public opinion on the three main options here: status quo, year-round daylight time, or year-round standard time. While there may be some border effects, anecdotally, I suspect there might be a bit of a northwest-to-southeast gradient in general opinion from standard to daylight time within a given US zone. -- Tim Parenti

On Nov 4, 2022, at 10:19 PM, Doug Ewell via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
Robert Elz replied to Paul Gilmartin:
just read the published information, like everyone else does.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/623
And https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/69

On 2022-11-04 5:38 PM, John Hawkinson via tz wrote:
Today's Washington Post carries a story, various headlined "As the end of daylight saving time nears, a House bill to make it permanent has collapsed" and also "Clock runs out on efforts to make daylight saving time permanent," by Dan Diamond. I am surprised it merited a push notification, but it did. Anyhow, it looks like the prospects for this bill to change daylight savings in the US are quite bleak.
Here is an allegedly paywalled-free link https://wapo.st/3TajkJo (via WaPo's "gift article" mechanism)
Of course technically the bill could still pass during the lame-duck period after mid-term elections, but story handicaps that as extremely unlikely. -- jhawk@alum.mit.edu <mailto:jhawk@alum.mit.edu> John Hawkinson
Another article in the New York Times: Why Do We Change the Clocks, Anyway? https://www.nytimes.com/article/daylight-saving-time-questions.html Why Do We Change the Clocks, Anyway? The twice-yearly ritual has roots in cost-cutting strategies of the late 19th century. A bill to make daylight saving time permanent has stalled in Congress. By Alan Yuhas Oct. 31, 2022 Hello. You may be here to learn when is daylight saving time, or what is the time that we’re saving, or why does daylight saving time even exist. Hopefully, this will answer those questions, and maybe a few more that hadn’t crossed your mind, like what do the railroad companies of the 19th century have to do with it and whether golf course owners have an interest in your sleep habits. Here goes. When is it? Unlike other, easier-to-remember federal events, like the Fourth of July, in the United States the clock change is tied to a roving day: Since 2007, it has taken place on the second Sunday of March, when clocks spring forward an hour, and the first Sunday of November, when they go back. (In 2022, those dates are March 13 and Nov. 6. The clocks spring forward again on March 12, 2023.) In Britain, France and Germany, the clocks change on the last Sunday in March, and the last Sunday in October. (In 2022, those dates are March 27 and Oct. 30. The clocks spring forward again in these countries on March 26, 2023.) American lawmakers in 1966, writing in the Uniform Time Act, decided that the right time of day for this shift was “2 o’clock antemeridian,” better known as 2 a.m. What is it? To farmers, daylight saving time is a disruptive schedule foisted on them by the federal government; a popular myth even blamed them for its existence. To some parents, it’s a nuisance that can throw bedtime into chaos. To the people who run golf courses, gas stations and many retail businesses, it’s great. “When it’s dark or there are limited hours after work, people tend to go straight home and stay there,” said Jeff Lenard, a spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores, an industry group. “When it’s lighter, they are more likely to go out and do something, whether it’s in the neighborhood, a local park or some other experience. And that behavior shift also drives sales, whether at a favorite restaurant or the local convenience store.” OK, if it wasn’t farmers, whose idea was this? The idea is to move an hour of sunlight from the early morning to the evening, so that people can make more use of daylight. Benjamin Franklin is often credited as the first to suggest it in the 18th century, after he realized he was wasting his Parisian mornings by staying in bed. He proposed that the French fire cannons at sunrise to wake people up and reduce candle consumption at night. Over the next 100 years, the Industrial Revolution laid the groundwork for his idea to enter government policy. For much of the 1800s, time was set according to the sun and the people running the clocks in every town and city, creating scores of conflicting, locally established “sun times.” It could be noon in New York, 12:05 in Philadelphia and 12:15 in Boston. This caused problems for railway companies trying to deliver passengers and freight on time, as nobody agreed whose time it was. In the 1840s, British railroads adopted standard times to reduce confusion. American counterparts soon followed. “There was the threat of federal intervention in all of this, so the railroads decided they were going to police themselves,” said Carlene Stephens, a curator at the National Museum of American History. Scientists were also urging a standardized system for marking time, she said. In North America, a coalition of businessmen and scientists decided on time zones, and in 1883, U.S. and Canadian railroads adopted four (Eastern, Central, Mountain and Pacific) to streamline service. The shift was not universally well received. Evangelical Christians were among the strongest opponents, arguing “time came from God and railroads were not to mess with it,” Ms. Stephens said. The introduction of time zones prompted fears of a kind of 19th-century Y2K. “Jewelers were busy yesterday answering questions from the curious, many of whom seemed to think that the change in time would generally create a sensation, a stoppage of business, and some sort of a disaster, the nature of which could not be exactly ascertained,” The New York Times reported in November 1883. Once the time zone business was settled, it wasn’t long until Franklin’s idea for daylight saving was refashioned for the industrial world. In the 1900s, an English builder, William Willet, urged British lawmakers to shift the clocks to reap economic benefits. Parliament rejected the proposal in 1909, only to embrace it a few years later under the pressures of World War I. In 1916, Germany was the first European nation to enact the policy in an effort to cut energy costs, and over the next few years several Western nations followed suit. In the United States, the federal government took oversight of time zones in 1918. And in March of that year, the country lost its first hour of sleep. But why? One of the oldest arguments for daylight saving time is that it can save energy costs. There have been many conflicting studies about whether actually it does. A Department of Energy report from 2008 found that the extended daylight saving time signed by George W. Bush in 2005 saved about 0.5 percent in total electricity use per day. Also that year, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the shift in daylight saving time, “contrary to the policy’s intent,” increased residential electricity demand by about 1 percent, raising electricity bills in Indiana by $9 million per year and increasing pollution emissions. Energy savings was precisely the argument President Richard M. Nixon used in 1974 when he signed into law the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act amid a fuel crisis. But what started as a two-year experiment didn’t even make it the year. On Sept. 30, 1974, eight months after the experiment began, the Senate put the country back on standard time after widespread discontent. Daylight saving time still has fervent supporters, especially among business advocates who argue it helps drive the economy. Who wants to end it? The European Union and several U.S. states, including California, Florida and Ohio, are either considering dropping the shift or taking steps to do so. In March, the Senate suddenly and unanimously passed legislation to do away with the twice-yearly time changes, making Daylight Saving Time permanent. But the House has yet to find consensus, Representative Frank Pallone Jr., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement. “There are a broad variety of opinions about whether to keep the status quo, to move to a permanent time, and if so, what time that should be,” he said. “These opinions don’t break down by party, but instead by region. We don’t want to make a hasty change and then have it reversed several years later after public opinion turns against it — which is exactly what happened in the early 1970s.” If the current iteration of the bill passes in the House and President Biden signs it, the change would take effect in November 2023. This fall, Mexico’s Senate followed suit, sending its president a bill to end daylight saving time for most of the country, but carved out an exception for the area along the United States border. China, India and Russia do not use daylight saving time. Nor does Hawaii or most of Arizona. (The Navajo Nation, in northeastern Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, does observe.) Several U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands also do not apply daylight saving time. In 2020, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine called for the abolition of daylight saving time. In a statement, the academy said the shift, by disrupting the body’s natural clock, could cause an increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular events, and could lead to more traffic accidents. “Not only are we sleep deprived but we’re trying to force our brain into a little bit more of an unnatural sleep schedule,” said Dr. Rachel Ziegler, a physician in the sleep medicine department at Mayo Clinic Health System. “If you ask any sleep specialist, I think most of us would be in favor of a permanent schedule.”
participants (18)
-
Brooks Harris
-
Clive D.W. Feather
-
D Nathan Cookson
-
Doug Ewell
-
Garrett Wollman
-
Guy Harris
-
John Hawkinson
-
John Marvin
-
Magnus Fromreide
-
merlyn@stonehenge.com
-
Paul Gilmartin
-
Phake Nick
-
Robert Elz
-
Sanjeev Gupta
-
Steffen Nurpmeso
-
Steve Allen
-
Tim Parenti
-
Tom Lane