Last week, the U.S. House passed legislation that would make daylight savings time permanent across the country. If it passes in the Senate, then it would mean the annual tradition for most of the country of switching clocks back and forth twice a year would be officially over.
Back in 2023, we studied what the impacts of daylight savings time were in Ohio. The biggest takeaway from that study was that for Ohio, either permanent daylight savings or standard time was preferable to switching back and forth, but which of those you preferred depended on what the impacts were. Permanent daylight time led to lower crime thanks to more light in the evening, permanent standard time led to energy savings since the sun lines up better with human energy use.
While the average economic outcome might be the same for permanent daylight savings and permanent standard time, a closer look at the issue will tell you that not everyone has the “average” opinion, and a lot of people have reason to prefer one option over the other.
Why some people might oppose permanent daylight savings time
Although the evidence points to the fact that changing clocks twice a year causes a lot of problems to society as a whole, there are people who think that changing to permanent daylight savings time is a negative outcome. For instance, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine strictly prefers permanent standard time and its earlier sunrise. Their position is that across the country, standard time better lines up with our circadian rhythm which in turn leads to many health benefits. AASM has gone as far as to “condemn” this new legislation.
Another major concern about switching to permanent daylight savings time is that in Northern states, the sun rising so late during the winter might present other challenges. In Minnesota for example, the sun won’t rise until 9:00 am during some times of the year. This is a difficult proposition for children and teachers who will start school in the pitch dark if school times stay the same.
The extent of many of these concerns depends on geography. States farther north experience shorter winter days, making the effects of permanent daylight savings time more noticeable than they would be in southern states. Similarly, the western portion of each time zone already experiences later sunrises than the eastern portions. A one-size-fits-all national policy inevitably produces different outcomes depending on where people live.
Other policy options
One thing local governments could do if they are forced to adopt permanent daylight savings time is move the start times of their schools. Schools could even go as far as twice a year changing the start time by an hour, moving back in winter and moving it forward again in spring.
One alternative that isn’t readily available but might make the most sense is to just let states pick what timezones they want to be in. The timezone map is already full of oddities, and this would give states the flexibility to choose specifically when they want their sunlight to be. If you wanted to take this a step further, let states choose in half-hour increments! It’s only weird until people get used to it.
Any sort of significant restructuring to how we keep our time is an opportunity for creative changes to other parts of our daily schedules. Our society relies on clocks to tell us where to be when, and we’ve had to adjust our bodies to respond to changes in the numbers. The point of all of this is at least in theory to help line up our lives with the sun. Maybe settling on a fixed time for the whole year can be an opportunity to rethink when certain things start.
