Matthew Yglesias has a post on Daylight Saving Time.
John J. Miller observes that “The person who invented the abomination that is Daylight Saving Time obviously was not responsible for getting children out of bed and off to school.” Indeed, DST is a huge pain in the ass for everyone.
. . .
For one thing, as far as energy conservation measures go, altering the structure of time is a little extreme. More to the point, there’s no evidence that this actually works. Even if it did work, the amount of possible savings is minimal since all it targets is electric lights which are a very minor component of overall energy usage.
The National Geographic article linked above is from July 2005 and is entitled “More Daylight Savings (sic): Energy Boon or Scheduling Snafu.” It notes that the energy saving data is sketchy and old. The federal government passed an expansion of DST which is to go into effect in March 2007 (3 weeks earlier than it began this year) based on studies conducted in 1974 and 1975. New studies are to be completed before the 2007 effective date. The federal government’s cut first, measure later approach to legislation reminds me of the Daniels administration.
I’ve always suspected that the “energy savings” reason for going on DST was not valid. We still have to drive cars, heat and/or air condition buildings, etc., no matter when the sun appears to rise and set. Work and school start at the same time, DST or not. I know I’ll be using more lights in the morning because it is still dark when I have to get up now, as opposed to a couple of days ago when it was light outside at my normal waking hour. I’ll still use the stove, watch TV, do laundry, and use the computer in the evenings, no matter when I turn on the lights. The majority of my energy use is in the evenings, no matter what time of year it is. At best, some of my energy use–or at least use of lights–will be shifting from one time of day to another–not reduced.
I’ve suspected the same thing. If nothing else, even if you’re not using the lights, you have to turn on your car to get to the golf course.
Of course, the issue of whether, as a matter of national policy, we should abandon DST is separate from the discussion of whether, given 47 other states that observe DST, it is in the interests of Indiana to observe a different time standard.
Agreed, John M.
I am one of those opposed to DST nationally and for matching the national policy in Indiana.
As for the savings, I think it will be negitive when they measure how much of the board they’ve cut (Great line Doug!). Those who either use a programmable thermostat or manually turn the AC off during the day are going to see higher bills. The sun will be beating down on your house longer each night, putting the hottest time of the day closer to the time most people are home.
If you think AC doesn’t use as much as lights, compare your electric bill in December to July, assuming you have gas heat.
I’ll be in Indiana soon and I want to see for myself what all the fuss is about!
Jason: You won’t get any argument from me about AC using up electricity. I’ve had to pay those high summer electrical bills. 2004 was a pretty mild summer, so my electricity usage during the summer was not as high as in previous years, yet still higher than winter, spring, and fall of that year.
John M: Unless going on DST actually results in high-wage jobs coming to Indiana in large numbers, people who left here (including some of my own siblings) moving back here for the great jobs, culture, etc., I don’t see how DST will benefit Indiana.
Having lived on a time zone border for half the year for most of my life, I don’t buy that “confusion for business” reason for Indiana going on DST–not for one minute. I have done business with people all over the country. I know people who do that also. Most of us over here on the Ohio border haven’t had problems with adding and subtracting 1, 2, 3, or whatever other number in order to conduct business with people out of state or in other countries. If it were truly a terrible problem, business people in this part of the state would have led the charge to go on DST years ago.
Since the border for the eastern time zone has been stretched to include Indiana, it made sense not to go on DST, at least not EDT. Yes, it was very much in the interest of Indiana not to observe EDT.
As Doug picked up on indirectly in his follow on comment, all of the “energy studies” were directed to finding if electrical energy consumption was being reduced by DST. Given that recreational interests such as golf courses and marinas heavily support DST, it seems reasonable to conclude that more gasoline is being burned as a result of DST. The so called “energy studies” are not energy use studies at all, but just electrical energy use studies.
Now, concerning electrical power usage, the National Geographic article mentions a California study. In considering this study it should be kept in mind that most of California’s population (i.e. southern California) lives east of its standard time meridian. The effect of this is that during the DST period sunsets in Indianapolis under EST were later (clock time) than those in San Diego for virtually the entire DST period (all but the end of October). Thus Eastern time with DST in Indiana fairly, though not exactly, corresponds to winter DST with summer double daylight saving as defined in the California study for southern California. The California study considered winter DST and summer double DST and concluded that summer double DST might produce a saving of one fifth of one percent of total electrical usage. Given that Indiana sunsets are later still than California’s, one would expect still smaller savings by practicing double DST (EDT), if any at all. The California study did conclude that monetary savings were possible because of shifts in peak power usage, but given how much further north Indiana’s population lives than California’s (with corresponding differences in climate) it seems difficult to believe that power demand peaks are directly comparable. Even were the California study directly applicable to Indiana, its finding that Winter DST produced far more benefit than summer double DST would lead to the conclusion that the best time arrangement for Indiana might well be Winter DST/Summer DST based on the closest time meridian. In other words, our best time zone for saving electrical power is year round Central Daylight (i.e. year round Eastern Standard!).
Regarding monetary savings from shifting peak power demands, last weekend’s Wall Street Journal (25 March) reported that some eastern utilities are now reporting peak winter power demands in the morning rather than in the afternoon due to changes in life style that favor more early morning activities. If this is occurring in Indiana the electrical power cost arguments could well favor using Central Time with daylight saving.