Daylight Saving Change: Energy Boon or Waste of Time?

Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

Updated March 9, 2007

At 2 a.m. on March 11 the United States will spring
forward three weeks earlier than usual, as the country implements the first change to its time standards since 1986.

In 2005 Congress passed a mammoth new energy bill that includes a controversial monthlong extension of daylight saving time.

Instead of starting on the first Sunday in April, daylight saving will now begin on the second Sunday in March. Daylight saving time will end on the first Sunday in November—one week later than it used to (see the history of daylight saving time in the U.S.).

But the move's energy-saving potential is uncertain and is already being called into question.

A study released last year by the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the change will save less than 1 percent of the country's annual energy consumption.

Bob Aldrich of the California Energy Commission told National Public Radio that energy needs in the U.S. have changed a lot since the 1970s, when the data supporting the current bill was collected.

"We've become much more electronically configured, if you will," he told NPR. In addition to lights, people plug in more computers, televisions, satellite dishes, and other power-hungry electronics than they did 30 years ago.

Meanwhile, advocates such as Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, who co-sponsored the bill in the House of Representatives, said the plan is about more than just saving energy.

"In addition to the benefits of energy saving, less crime, fewer traffic fatalities, more recreation time and increased economic activity, daylight saving just brings a smile to everybody's faces," Congressman Markey said in a press statement.

Out-of-Date Data

Some of the bill's boosters cited U.S. Department of Transportation studies from the 1970s while arguing for the change.

The studies evaluated the 1974 and 1975 extensions of daylight saving time, which were designed to address the energy crisis spurred by an oil embargo.

In 2001 then-acting deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy Linda Lawson discussed the 1970s research before the House Science Committee.

She reported that the studies had found an extension of daylight saving in springtime "might result in electricity savings of 1 percent in March and April, equivalent to roughly a hundred thousand barrels of oil daily over the two months."

(Related news: "How Long Will Cheap Oil Last?" [November 29, 2004].)

The study also noted reductions in crime and traffic accidents attributed to extended daylight hours.

But Lawson also cautioned the committee about drawing conclusions from studies that were already old in 2001.

"I want to note that these studies are over 25 years old and were limited in scope," she told the committee.

"Congress captured many of the benefits identified in our studies in the legislative changes to daylight saving time enacted in 1986 [when the previous start and stop dates were established].

"There have been dramatic changes in lifestyle and commerce since we completed our studies that raise serious questions about extrapolating conclusions from our studies into today's world."

Prior to its latest study, the California Energy Commission had studied the affects of daylight saving time on energy costs during California's 2001 energy crisis.

"Our report indicated that if we [extended] daylight saving time through all of March, there would be a decline of electricity use at peak hours of about 3.5 percent," said Claudia Chandler, the organization's assistant executive director.

"However, overall electricity use would only decline about one half of a percent. You're basically shifting noncritical energy use to later in the day," Chandler said.

"It was assumed that people would stay outside later and that when they came in they would go to bed earlier because it got dark."

"In California it's all about shifting use to off-peak hours after 7 p.m.," Chandler continued. "I don't know how it might work in states that don't have the same kind of weather-driven [usage] peaks as California."

The plan's opponents point to potential problems that have little to do with regional weather patterns.

Scheduling Snafus?

In 2005, when Congress was preparing to vote on the new dates, the airline industry was adamantly against a change of the daylight saving calendar, which officials said would severely affect scheduling.

"There will be disruption all over the place. If [daylight saving time] is extended [by] four weeks, we'll end up with some really major difficulties," Anthony Concil, a spokesperson for the International Air Transport Association, said at the time.

"When Europe and the U.S. are on different times, connections become less convenient. Right now there is one week of discord between the U.S. and Europe, so it's sort of at a manageable level," Concil said.

He argued that if the energy bill passed, every year "you might have a monthlong period where you have lousy connections, so from a traveler's perspective it's not going to be particularly good."

Airlines may ultimately feel the change where it hurts the most—on the bottom line.

"It's going to be expensive for airlines," Concil added. "Particularly for U.S. carriers—and they are in a difficult climate right now—it's a major issue, as well as for carriers traveling to and from the U.S."

In addition, computer groups are raising fears that the extension could cause wide-scale scheduling snafus.

The nonprofit Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium, which includes leading universities, software giants like Oracle, and even NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, prepared an advisory document for Congress while the bill was under consideration.

The statement warned that the bill does not allow for enough time to prepare the United States' computer-based scheduling systems.

"It's not a matter of whether the proposal is right or wrong. It's a matter of practicality," the advisory said.

"We suggest a simple delay of the effective date to [ensure] that the calendar and scheduling vendors and consumers have ample time to prepare for any changes."

Running the gamut from science to faith, religious observances and calendars tied to sunrise and sunset times will also be affected.

Several Jewish groups lodged formal complaints before the bill was passed. The groups said that a later sunrise during the extension periods would hinder observant Jews' ability to pray at sunup and still make it to work by 9 a.m.

The Chicago-based National PTA and other education groups raised child-safety concerns.

"National PTA is pleased that the U.S. House and Senate conferees scaled back the original proposal for extension of daylight-saving time in the winter months," a 2005 PTA press statement said.

"We remain concerned about the potential safety issues the extension into March may cause due to the increased danger of traveling to school in dark hours."

The PTA urged a congressional study on student safety, in addition to any energy-conservation studies.

Free Email News Updates
Best Online Newsletter, 2006 Codie Awards
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).