How Daylights Savings Time Impacts Energy Usage

We're Here to Help

View Rates

Daylight Saving Time (DST) has long been a topic of discussion in the U.S. and across the globe. Originally introduced as a way to maximize daylight hours, DST adjusts clocks forward in the spring and back in the fall to make better use of natural sunlight.

On Sunday, November 3, many Americans will once again move their clocks back one hour, gaining an extra hour of sleep. But what does this time change mean for energy consumption?

In this article, we’ll explore the history of Daylight Saving Time, its intended benefits, and the ongoing debate about whether it still serves its original purpose. We’ll also look at how states and territories in the U.S. handle DST, the economic impacts, and recent legislative efforts to abolish or modify it.

The History of Daylight Saving Time

Daylight Saving Time was implemented during World War I to conserve energy for war production by taking advantage of longer daylight hours. Germany was the first country to adopt it in 1916, and the practice quickly spread to other nations, including the United States. It was reintroduced during World War II for similar reasons. After the wars, however, the practice fell out of favor in many places.

In the U.S., confusion and inconsistency across states regarding time changes led to the creation of the Uniform Time Act in 1966. This federal law standardized the start and end of DST across the country, though individual states were allowed to opt out. The law has since been amended multiple times, most notably in 2007 when DST was extended to start on the second Sunday of March and end on the first Sunday of November. Congress has played a significant role in shaping DST regulations, and today, all but two states — Arizona and Hawaii — observe DST.

How Daylight Saving Time Affects Energy Usage

The primary goal of Daylight Saving Time has always been to reduce energy consumption. By shifting an extra hour of daylight into the evening, it was assumed that people would use less electricity for lighting and appliances in their homes.

This idea made sense during the early 20th century, when lighting was a significant part of energy consumption. Following the oil crisis, studies conducted in the 1970s suggested that DST could save approximately 1% of energy use per day. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, these savings could be attributed to reduced demand for lighting and heating in the early evening hours.

However, modern-day energy use patterns are quite different. Appliances like air conditioners, computers, and televisions now account for a larger portion of household energy use. The energy savings from DST are minimal at best, and DST may even increase energy consumption — particularly in regions that rely heavily on air conditioning during the warmer months. The benefit of having more daylight in the evening is often offset by the increased use of cooling systems.

The Modern Debate: Is Daylight Saving Time Still Effective?

The effectiveness of Daylight Saving Time in saving energy has become a topic of debate in recent years. Proponents argue that DST still provides benefits by reducing the need for artificial lighting and encouraging outdoor activities in the evening, which can boost mental health and productivity.

However, critics argue that the drawbacks outweigh these benefits. In regions with hot climates, such as the southern U.S., the extra hour of daylight in the evening increases the use of air conditioning, which consumes more energy. Additionally, winter months see little to no energy savings since heating needs are constant, regardless of daylight hours.

A 2011 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that while DST does reduce electricity use for lighting, it increases overall energy consumption due to the higher demand for heating and cooling. The study also pointed out that DST disrupts sleep patterns, leading to decreased productivity and health issues, which could result in an overall negative impact on the economy.

Some states, including California and Texas, are exploring a move to permanent daylight or permanent standard time to eliminate the clock changes altogether, citing minimal energy savings and public health concerns.

Global Response to Daylight Saving Time

The U.S. is not the only country grappling with the complexities of DST. For example, Europe and South America observe “summer time” or some form of clock change to maximize daylight hours. However, the debate over the effectiveness of these measures is global. The European Union has been discussing eliminating seasonal time changes, with several member states pushing for either permanent summer or winter time.

While some southern hemisphere countries observe DST during their summer months, which occur at opposite times compared to the northern hemisphere, the practice varies. Australia observes DST in some regions but not others, while Brazil discontinued nationwide DST in 2019. Other southern hemisphere nations like Chile, New Zealand, and parts of Africa continue to observe DST.

In the U.S., time zones and local factors influence how DST is implemented. Hawaii, Arizona, and U.S. territories like the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa do not observe DST, often due to their geographical locations, which make the time change unnecessary.

State-Specific Reactions to Daylight Saving Time

While most U.S. states observe DST, a few notable exceptions exist:

• Arizona. Arizona does not follow DST due to the state’s hot climate, where extending daylight hours would only increase air conditioning use. The Navajo Nation, located within Arizona, does observe DST due to its unique geographic and political situation, causing some time zone confusion within the state.
• Hawaii. Hawaii opts out of DST as the island state experiences consistent sunrise and sunset times throughout the year, making the time change unnecessary.
• Some U.S. territories. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands do not observe DST.

States that have proposed changes to their observance of DST include:

• California
• Ohio
• Utah

These states argue that adjusting or eliminating DST could lead to significant benefits in the following areas:

• Energy consumption. Aligning waking hours more closely with natural daylight could reduce reliance on artificial lighting and heating, potentially leading to energy savings.
• Public health. Eliminating the twice-yearly time change could prevent disruptions to sleep patterns, potentially reducing associated health risks.
• Economic considerations. Better-aligned work schedules and reduced time change adjustment costs could increase productivity and economic output. We detail this further in the next section.

The Economic Impact of Daylight Saving Time

DST can have significant economic implications. For instance, retail, tourism, and outdoor recreation industries often benefit from extended daylight hours, as people are more likely to shop or engage in leisure activities after work when it’s still light out.

However, DST also has downsides. Disruptions caused by the biannual clock change can lead to decreased productivity, accidents, and higher costs for businesses that operate across multiple time zones. In 2020, USA Today reported on a study that estimated the cost of DST to the U.S. economy at $434 million per year due to reduced efficiency and increased health issues like heart attacks and strokes.

Energy providers have also had to adapt to modern-day patterns of energy usage. As more households and businesses rely on air conditioning and other electronic devices, the benefits of DST have become less clear-cut. The U.S. Department of Transportation has acknowledged that while DST was originally designed to save energy, its impact on today’s energy grid is mixed at best.

Legislative Efforts To Abolish or Modify Daylight Saving Time

In recent years, there have been growing efforts to either abolish DST altogether or switch to a year-round standard or daylight time. One of the most prominent legislative efforts is the Sunshine Protection Act, introduced in Congress to make DST permanent nationwide. The act has seen support in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, though it has yet to pass into law.

State legislatures have also been active in this debate. Florida was one of the first states to pass legislation in favor of permanent daylight, but the change cannot take effect without federal approval. California, Texas, and Ohio have also passed similar bills, though they also await federal authorization.

Opponents of permanent DST argue that switching to permanent standard time would better align with natural circadian rhythms and improve public health. However, there is still no consensus on the best course of action, and many states remain in limbo as they wait for federal leadership on the issue.

The Future of Daylight Saving Time and Energy Usage

Lawmakers have long discussed whether to maintain the current system or move to time year-round, without the biannual clock changes. DST, regulated by the Uniform Time Act of 1966, was introduced to standardize the time start and time ends of DST across the country, but its relevance is now in question.

While most of the U.S. observes DST, territories like the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico do not follow the practice, staying on local time year-round.

In major cities like New York, the time change has widespread impacts on energy consumption and daily life, while the benefits are still debated. As we approach the time change each spring and fall, the conversation about whether the U.S. should continue this practice or adopt a new system will likely persist.

Enroll with Payless Power to reduce your energy usage and find affordable electricity solutions. Visit Payless Power to learn more and get started today.

URL copied to clipboard