SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
73–325PS
2001
ENERGY CONSERVATION POTENTIAL
OF EXTENDED AND DOUBLE
DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 24, 2001
Serial No. 107–30
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Subcommittee on Energy
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
KEN CALVERT, California
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon
JIM MATHESON, Utah
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HARLAN WATSON Subcommittee Staff Director
TOM VANEK, KAREN KIMBALL, JOHN DARNELL Republican Professional Staff Members
CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TOM HAMMOND Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
Energy Conservation Potential of Extended and Double Daylight Saving Time
May 24, 2001
Opening Statement by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD–6), Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Opening Statement by Representative Lynn Woolsey (CA–6), Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Opening Statement by Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI–3), Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Opening Statement by Representative David Wu (OR–1), Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel I:
The Honorable Brad Sherman (CA–24), U.S. House of Representatives
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Panel II:
Ms. Linda Lawson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Mr. James Benfield, Bracy Williams & Co., former Executive Director of the Daylight Saving Coalition
Oral Statement
Prepared Statement
Biography
Discussion
The Effect of Daylight Saving Time on School Children
Estimating the Effects of Double Daylight Saving Time
Advantages and Disadvantages of Year-Long Daylight Saving Time and Double Daylight Saving Time
Increasing Public Awareness
Effects on the Dairy and Wine Industries
Considerations: Number of Time Changes Per Year, Informing the Public, Importance of Uniformity
Effect on AM Radio Stations and Canada and Mexico as Trading Partners
Reliability of Past Studies
Concluding Remarks and Limiting Time Changes to Twice Per Year
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by the Majority Staff
Ms. Linda Lawson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Double Daylight Savings Time
A New Western Time Zone
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Mr. James C. Benfield, Bracey Williams & Co.
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Double Daylight Savings Time
A New Western Time Zone
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Mr. William J. Keese, Chairman, California Energy Commission
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Double Daylight Savings Time
A New Western Time Zone
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Mr. William R. Harris, Attorney
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Double Daylight Savings Time
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A New Western Time Zone
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Mr. William J. Keese, Chairman, California Energy Commission
Letter to Chairman Roscoe Bartlett
Staff Report, ''Effects of Daylight Saving Time on California Electricity Use,'' May 2001, P400–01–013
Mr. William R. Harris, Attorney, ''Double Daylight Saving Time and Extended Daylight Saving Time: Uncertain Energy Conservation for the Nation or for States with 'Rolling Blackouts' ''
CRS Report for Congress: Daylight Saving Time, by H.G. Yacker, 98–99C, updated August 1, 2000
Hearing Charter for Hearing on Energy Conservation Potential of Extended and Double Daylight Saving Time, Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy, U.S. House of Representatives
Letter from Congressman Roscoe G. Bartlett, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, House Committee on Science to Ms. Mary Hutzler, Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration, June 15, 2001
Response from Mary J. Hutzler, Acting Administrator, Energy Information Administration, to Congressman Roscoe G. Bartlett, July 31, 2001
ENERGY CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF EXTENDED DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME AND DOUBLE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roscoe G. Bartlett [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Chairman BARTLETT. Let me call our hearing to order. The Ranking Minority Member is on her way here. She just finished 1 minute on the Floor and she should be here momentarily.
Today, we will be examining the potential for energy savings which could result from extending the duration of Daylight Saving Time as well as from Double Daylight Saving time. We will also be looking at how other areas of society may be affected, both positively and negatively, by such changes.
Our witnesses will address the lessons of history and their practical implications today, especially, regarding the potential for energy savings nationwide beyond their immediate application to the current situation in California and our western states.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will first hear from our distinguished colleague, Congressman Brad Sherman of California, who introduced H.R. 704, the Energy Time Adjustment Authorization Act, on February 14, 2001. The provisions of Mr. Sherman's bill have been included in H.R. 1647, the Electricity Emergency Relief Act, which was introduced by Representative Joe Barton on May 1, 2001. H.R. 1647, as amended, is now before the Energy and Commerce Committee. The purpose of this bill is to allow states in the Pacific time zone, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, to temporarily adjust standard time in response to the energy crisis.
We will then hear from a panel composed of Ms. Linda Lawson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, and Mr. James Benfield of Bracy Williams and Company. I might add that in a former life, Mr. Benfield was founder of the Daylight Savings Coalition, which led to a successful campaign to extend Daylight Savings to its current duration.
We have also requested written testimony from two witnesses who were not able to appear before us, Mr. William Keese, Chair of the California Energy Commission, and Mr. William Harris, attorney and consultant on energy and Daylight Savings. Mr. Keese has indicated that significant savings could be possible with Double Daylight Savings in California based on preliminary findings from a study they are conducting. Mr. Harris testified before Congress in 1973, when year-round Daylight Savings were being considered. We now have both of their testimonies. They are being reviewed by staff and will then be available to the public.
I realize that this hearing will be revisiting a subject that appears to have been thoroughly covered in the past, as well as recently, including Mr. Sherman's proposed legislation to address the California situation. Our purpose here is not to reinvent the wheel but to investigate to what extent Daylight Saving Time energy savings may apply more broadly, nationwide, not just in California. Also, since many changes have occurred in patterns of use since the first use of Daylight Saving time as an energy saving measure in World War I, we would like to get an estimate of what overall energy savings might be anticipated today.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Daylight Savings has a long history as energy-saving strategy in wartime, and more recently, during the oil embargo of the 1970's. The potential for reduced electric power usage was clear during the First and Second World Wars when the main use of electricity was the incandescent lighting. The shift of the beginning of the workday to 1 hour earlier resulted in an hour less electric light usage in the evenings, assuming people kept to their usual schedules. It is easy to see how this would have reduced total energy consumption and possibly peak energy demand as well.
It is important to recognize that our patterns of energy use have changed considerably since then so that it is not a foregone conclusion that significant energy savings will result from extended Daylight Savings today. Indeed, incandescent lighting is no longer the primary use of electricity and its use does not always peak after sunset. Peaks are now likely to depend on weather-related heating and cooling and vary from one region to another.
Even if overall energy savings are not substantial, it may still be worth trying extended Daylight Savings. For example, California's electricity demand problems could be addressed by shifting peak demand to spread out loads resulting in lowering peak demand. Further, an additional virtue of Daylight Saving Time at a time of crisis is that it can help to increase awareness of the problem and remind people of other ways to save energy.
Finally, before we prescribe a cure, we must be careful that we have properly diagnosed the condition we seek to cure. This hearing will attempt to understand the problem of lowering peak demand as well as achieving energy savings and to consider whether Daylight Saving Time is an effective option to address these problems.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to hearing today's testimony and pursuing these subjects in greater detail.
Before we get started, I would like to remind the Members of the Subcommittee and our witnesses that this hearing is being broadcast live on the Internet, so please keep that in mind during today's proceedings.
I would also like to ask for the unanimous consent that all Members who wish may have their opening statements entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I now turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, Ms. Woolsey, for her opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bartlett follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROSCOE BARTLETT
Today we will be examining the potential for energy savings which could result from extending the duration of Daylight Savings Time as well as from ''double daylight savings time''. We will also be looking at how other areas of society may be affected, both positively and negatively, by such changes.
Our witnesses will address the lessons of history and their practical implications today, especially regarding the potential for energy savings nationwide, beyond their immediate application to the current situation in California.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will first hear from my distinguished colleague, Congressman Brad Sherman of California, who introduced H.R. 704—the Energy Time Adjustment Authorization Act—on February 14, 2001. The provisions of Mr. Sherman's bill have been included in H.R. 1647—the Electricity Emergency Relief Act—which was introduced by Representative Joe Barton on May 1, 2001. H.R. 1647—as amended—is now before the Energy and Commerce Committee. The purpose of this bill is to allow States in the Pacific Time zone (California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) to temporarily adjust standard time in response to the energy crisis.
We will then hear from a panel composed of Ms. Linda Lawson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation and Mr. James C. Benfield of Bracy Williams & Co. I might add that, in a former life, Mr. Benfield was founder of the Daylight Savings Coalition which led a successful campaign to extend Daylight Savings to the its current duration.
We have also requested written testimony from two witnesses who were not able to appear before us: Mr. William Keese, Chair of the California Energy Commission and Mr. William R. Harris, attorney and consultant on energy and Daylight Savings. Mr. Keese has indicated that significant savings could be possible with double daylight savings in California, based on preliminary findings from a study they are conducting. Mr. Harris testified before Congress in 1973, when year round Daylight Savings were being considered.
I realize that this hearing will be revisiting a subject that appears to have been thoroughly covered in the past, as well as recently, including Mr. Sherman's proposed legislation to address the California situation. Our purpose here is not to ''re-invent the wheel'' but to investigate to what extent Daylight Savings Time energy savings may apply more broadly, nationwide, not just in California. Also, since many changes have occurred in patterns of use since the first use of Daylight Savings as an energy saving measure in World War I, we would like to get an estimate of what overall energy savings might be anticipated today.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Daylight Savings has a long history as energy-saving strategy in wartime and, more recently, during the oil embargo of the 1970s. The potential for reduced electric power usage was clear during the First and Second World Wars when the main use of electricity was for incandescent lighting. The shift of the beginning of the workday to one hour earlier resulted in an hour less electric light usage in the evenings—assuming people kept to their usual schedules. It is easy to see how this would have reduced total energy consumption and possibly peak demand as well.
It is important to recognize that our patterns of energy use have changed considerably since then, so that it is not a foregone conclusion that significant energy savings will result from extended Daylight Savings today. Indeed, incandescent lighting is no longer the primary use of electricity and its use does not always peak after sunset. Peaks are now likely to depend on weather-related heating and cooling and vary from one region to another.
Even if overall energy savings are not substantial, it may still be worth trying extended Daylight Savings. For example, California's electricity demand problems could be addressed by shifting peak demand to spread out loads resulting in lowering peak demand. Further, an additional virtue of Daylight Saving Time at a time of crisis is that it can help to increase awareness of the problem and remind people of other ways to save energy.
Finally, before we prescribe a cure, we must be careful that we have properly diagnosed the condition we seek to cure. This hearing will attempt to understand the problem of lowering peak demand as well as achieving energy savings and to consider whether Daylight Saving Time is an effective option to address these problems.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today. With my constituents in California in the midst of an energy crisis, it is only reasonable that we explore every single possible way to solve this energy crisis.
My California colleague, Brad Sherman, has introduced legislation, H.R. 704, that he is going to speak to us about, I am sure. His legislation would allow states in the Pacific time zone to adjust their standard time to help alleviate some of the energy crisis. And I am proud to say that I am an original cosponsor of Mr. Sherman's bill.
This morning, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the practical effects that adjustments to Daylight Saving Time would make. In particular, I am interested in the energy savings that can be realized through the use of this option, not just in California, but in all states; not just short-term, but possibly, long-term.
It is also important that we hear about the negative effects that adjusting Daylight Saving Time could have on various groups. We have to make sure that the benefit outweighs any negativity.
Mr. Chairman, efforts to help solve California's energy crisis and prevent it from occurring in other parts of our country are an important matter. What is happening now in California can and will have national implications because California, the sixth largest economy in the world, sets a precedent. As California goes, so goes the nation. That is why I am pleased that today we have this opportunity to learn more about one option to address our energy situation, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and hearing their perspectives. Thank you.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Lynn Woolsey follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNN WOOLSEY
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. With my constituents and California in the midst of an energy crisis, it's only reasonable that we at least explore all possible ways to help solve this crisis.
My California colleague, Brad Sherman, has introduced legislation, H.R. 704, which would allow states in the Pacific Time Zone to adjust their standard time to help alleviate the energy crisis. I am proud to say I am an original co-sponsor of this bill.
This morning I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the practical effects that adjustments to Daylight Savings Time would make. In particular, I am interested in the energy savings that can be realized through use of this option—not just in California, but in all states. But, it's also important that we hear about negative effects that adjusting Daylight Savings Time could have on various groups—including school children, farmers or business groups.
Mr. Chairman, efforts to help solve California's energy crisis—and prevent it from occurring in other parts of our country—are an important matter. What's happening now in California can have national implications. . .because, as goes California, goes the nation.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That's why I am pleased that today we have this opportunity to learn more about one option to address our energy situation. I look forward to hearing our witnesses perspectives.
Thank you.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. We are joined at our hearing by two of our other colleagues, Dr. Vernon Ehlers, the other Ph.D. scientist in the Congress. Dr. Ehlers, do you have opening comments?
Mr. EHLERS. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing and I am reminded of the closest election in Michigan history when the states originally had to decide whether to go along with the new Federal law. We were in the far end, western end, of the time zone. The original, it went to a referendum, because the people weren't happy with it. The original vote, out of 2.5 million votes cast, there was a 44-vote difference, the closest election in Michigan history. The recount lasted almost as long as Florida's recount, and it, eventually, reached a difference of several hundred, and we joined the rest of the nation in having Daylight Saving Time.
I recite this only to point out how emotional this issue can become; particularly, if we ever reached the point where we would also increase the Daylight Saving Time, shift yet another hour during the winter. The parents have great concerns about their children going to the buses or walking to school early in the morning, and the first time such a child gets hit by a car, there will be an explosion. So it is truly an emotional issue and not one easy to persuade the people about.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I yield back.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. You mentioned emotion, and that reminds me of the farmer's response when you ask about a time, and he says, is that Government time or God's time?
Mr. Wu is also with us. Mr. Wu?
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Dr. Ehlers has reminded us, this is a very serious topic, both from a policy perspective and from the viewpoint of everyone who pays very close attention to this. It is as serious as a heart attack, but I wanted to welcome my friend and colleague, Brad Sherman.
I think, Brad, that one of the reasons why you can propose legislation like this is because, from my perspective, you are always one or 2 hours early for everything that you do. And I did notice, Brad, that you were speaking on the Floor around midnight last night, and here you are looking fresh as a daisy, as ever, and we look forward to your testimony.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Congressman Sherman, we are really pleased that you are here and have an interest in this subject, and the floor is now yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding these hearings. I thank you for the opportunity to put my statement in the record so that my presentation will not be as long as the 1 hour special order from last night.
Chairman BARTLETT. Without objection.
Mr. SHERMAN. I got involved in this issue because of the crisis facing California and the other western states. Daylight Saving Time began as a method of saving energy during World War I and has been used both in Europe and in the United States to save energy during World War II. Then in this country, we extended Daylight Saving Time during the 1970's oil crisis.
When I talk about saving energy, energy for these purposes is really two different things. First, it is the fuel that we use to create electricity. Now, there are a number of sources of electricity that are available 24 hours. You may have hydroelectric or nuclear, that is simply available on a continuous basis. But in every region of our country, we have to burn fuel to generate some of the electricity we need, and so reducing demand for energy, even if you have plenty of electric generating capacity, saves the fuel.
The other crisis, though, or the crisis we have in California, is one of generating capacity. And there, saving fuel is not as important, although, it is a good thing from a number of perspectives. Also, although it is not publicized, California may have a fuel shortage toward the end of this summer, as we deplete our natural gas stocks. So while the focus is on saving electricity during the peak usage times, saving electricity at any time is helpful.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The studies seem to indicate that we would save 1 or 2 percent of our total electric usage with increased Daylight Saving Time. Now, 1 or 2 percent doesn't wound like much until you realize that when there is a ''blackout'' in California, that usually means 1 or 2 percent of the consumers are being blacked out, that demand has exceeded supply by 1 or 2 percent.
I have introduced H.R. 704, and your Ranking Member had the wisdom to be an original co-sponsor. I want to stress, this bill is in reaction to the California State Legislature passing a resolution asking, please, give us control over the clocks during this energy crisis. And all the bill does is just that. It gives the western states the right to change their clocks. They are in the best position to decide whether the energy savings is worth the hassle that their people need to go through. This is a crisis that California has been called upon to try to solve itself. California and the other western states should be given all the tools.
Not only is my bill a freestanding bill, it is included in H.R. 1647. But my hope is that we are able to get it on the Floor as a freestanding bill, because I don't have to tell you, the freestanding bill is a lot less controversial than all of the other proposals that deal with how to solve this energy problem, both short-time and long-term.
Now, even if we are just granting this power to the states, it is appropriate for us to look at whether Daylight Saving Time is beneficial and in what manner. My own proposal, were I in Sacramento and should California get this authority, is that we have Double Daylight Saving Time from the first Sunday in May until the Sunday before Labor Day. The reason for this is two-fold. First, that is when we have the energy generation capacity crisis in California, during the summer air conditioning needed months.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, that the chief argument against Daylight Saving Time, one that I hope to rebut in my statement here today, is that school children may face additional risks getting to school early in the morning. Double Daylight Saving time in California, as a chart attached to my statement will show, will make sure that it is light by 7 in the morning on every school day. So Double Daylight Saving Time during the period I have outlined doesn't have the chief disadvantage, or alleged disadvantage, brought up by critics.
Double Daylight Saving Time for California would help save energy in several ways. First, it would mean that homeowners and residents wouldn't need to turn on the lights in their home until it was time to watch West Wing reruns at 9 p.m. It would be light that late. Second, there are a number of factories that have gone on a special schedule, where they try to conclude their business activities by 1 or 2 in the afternoon. With Double Daylight Saving Time, those concluded activities would conclude by the time that chief—we would have the highest demand for Daylight Saving Time. Because under the—we would have the highly sized demand—excuse me—for air conditioning because 2 p.m. under Double Daylight Saving Time is, actually, God's time, noon. And chief air conditioning use begins roughly at 2 p.m., God's time, which would be 4 p.m. under Double Daylight Saving Time, when many factory workers would have already locked up their factories and be on their way home, where, hopefully, they are not turning on the lights when they get there because it is still light outside.
Now, Daylight Saving Time has been shown to reduce crime in the evening, to reduce traffic accidents in the evening. There was one unfortunate student death I am told about in Florida that is attributed to Daylight Saving Time. Let me point out the politics of this, and I hope we rise above the politics. If you are going to change the clocks, this is a huge country. Somewhere it is going to be dark in the morning when it would have been light, and somewhere a reporter is going to take a camera and take a picture of a victim and say that victim would not have been hurt if only you hadn't changed the clocks, and that is a story. You may have 50 or 100 traffic accidents that didn't happen that evening because it was still light while people were going home. You may have 50 robberies, rapes, burglaries that don't occur at 8 p.m. that evening. But how do you take a picture of the traffic accident that didn't occur? We have to be mature about this and get our press to be mature enough about this to focus on statistics rather than individual stories. And it may be difficult to get them to do that. The cheap shots are out there. I guess we could go out there and take a picture of somebody who was victimized by crime in California at 8:30 p.m. tonight, and say, if only we had had more Daylight Saving Time, that wouldn't have happened. But it is much harder.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I should also point out that—and I am not familiar with everything that happened in Florida, but if that accident happened during the winter, it was lighter in Florida during the winter under Daylight Saving Time than it was in Minneapolis if they didn't have Daylight Saving Time. I, personally, find it confusing to live on a round planet, because you have got to deal with both the latitude and the longitude. But to say that a winter death in Florida is attributable to Daylight Saving Time is to say that if you choose to move to Minneapolis, you are endangering your children, and I, frankly, have not seen any warning signs as you cross the Minnesota State border.
But I will say the idea that there will be a problem for students is exemplified by the slogan behind you there ''Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' And that saying may be used in some cheap shot story if there is an early morning accident, and in a big country, there will always be an early morning accident somewhere and evening accidents, both those that occur and those that are avoided.
I have included in my statement estimates of the electricity that we are likely to save, a chart that shows when the sun would rise and set in Los Angeles, and just for comparison, what the current sunrise and sunset times are in Minneapolis, perhaps, the metropolis that is furthest to the north in the 48 contiguous states.
So I do think that at a minimum during a short-term crisis, we ought to give temporary extraordinary powers to the states affected so that they can decide what can do best for their state and deal with this energy crisis. I would commend, also, to the Committee, exploring alternatives on a permanent basis or on a national basis, and perhaps Double Daylight Saving Time or year-round Daylight Saving Time would be helpful to the nation, but that is beyond what I have studied. Thank you.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BRAD SHERMAN
Energy Conservation Potential of Extended and Daylight Savings Time
Mr. Chairman, thank you holding this hearing on the energy conservation potential of extended and double daylight saving time. I appreciate you affording me the opportunity to testify on what I believe to be an important tool to address the energy crisis in the West.
We all recognize that the crisis facing California and the other Western states is a complex problem that no single action will resolve. One step that I believe would prove helpful to the West involves an adjustment of the time. History has shown—and I believe that the other panelists today will concur—that energy consumption can be reduced through a variety of adjustments in the standard time.
I have introduced legislation in this Congress which would allow California and other Pacific Time Zone states to adjust their time if the legislature of the state makes a finding that such an adjustment would help alleviate an energy crisis. The bill has 20 bipartisan cosponsors and its language has been incorporated in a bill that Congressman Joe Barton has introduced.
My legislation simply gives these states the authority to adjust their time. Should the bill be enacted, I would suggest to the California legislature that California move to double daylight saving time during the summer months—from the first Sunday in May until the Sunday before Labor Day. This would, in effect, put Los Angeles on Mountain Daylight Time for a three month period during which time demand for electricity is the highest. History has shown that year round daylight saving time can save between 1% and 2% of energy consumption: I believe that taking this additional step during the summer will result in even greater savings.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to briefly describe the legislation that I have introduced as well as my understanding of the historical effects of extended daylight saving time.
H.R. 704—The Emergency Time Adjustment Authorization Act
Last year, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 56 asking Congress to permit California to move immediately to daylight saving time in order to help solve the energy crisis. Congress has yet to act. California State Senator Betty Karnette introduced the resolution and she asked me to introduce legislation at the federal level to allow California to lengthen daylight saving time.
H.R. 704, the Energy Time Adjustment Authorization Act (ETAAA), which I introduced on February 14, 2001, would authorize California and the other Pacific Time Zone states to adjust their time if the legislature of a state finds that an adjustment would help alleviate an energy crisis. If one state makes a finding that an adjustment would lead to energy conservation and adjusts its time, the other states in the time zone could make an adjustment without making a similar finding. The bill extends this authority to the Pacific Time Zone states until December 31, 2003. The Speaker has referred this legislation to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that my bill has been referred to another committee, I am hopeful that, as your subcommittee considers the effect of daylight saving time and double daylight saving time, you remember a number of important points about my bill: (1) H.R. 704 does not require California or the other states to make adjustments to their time; (2) it does not mandate what adjustment the states must make; (3) the bill is temporary in nature, to allow California to deal with the crisis at hand; (4) historical and contemporary analyses of the effects of daylight saving time indicate that extended daylight saving time does indeed save significant energy, in addition to other ancillary benefits. In short, it gives a temporary authorization to the California and the other Western states to adjust their time to deal with a very specific problem.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
H.R. 704 Gives the Authority and the Responsibility to the State Legislatures
The President has indicated that the energy crisis is a state issue which demands a state response. H.R. 704 does not require California or the other states to make adjustments to their time. Rather, the bill authorizes the States to adjust their time if they make a finding that such an adjustment would ''help alleviate the energy crisis.''
H.R. 704 gives the state legislatures a tool needed to address the energy crisis, specifically, the authority to adjust the time in a manner which benefits the state the most. The State legislature is the appropriate body to consult with the transportation authorities, broadcast corporations, school districts and other interested parties in the State regarding the adjustment of time.
There Is No Congressional Mandate for Action
The Energy Time Adjustment Authorization Act authorizes action; it does not require it. The California legislature has asked for this authority, so it is likely that they would use this authorization. By granting the authority without giving the state a mandate, the bill provides California with the tools to ease the burden. The bill opens the doors for action; it does not tell California which door to walk through.
My suggestion to California is double daylight saving time—standard time plus two hours—from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Under this plan, it will be light by 6:52 a.m. during the school year and well before 7:30 a.m. in the August and pre-Labor Day period. Also, the warm summer months are when we will have the greatest electrical shortage.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Authority to Adjust the Time Is Temporary and Specific in Its Rationale
The authority that the bill grants to the states is temporary and its purpose is limited in nature. The bill gives the states the authority to adjust their time until December 31, 2003.
Other Pacific Time Zone States
H.R. 704 gives other Pacific Time Zone states the same authority as California. These states face many of the same electrical shortages as California. Even if they did not, some Pacific Time Zone states may feel the need to keep time with California. I am pleased that Representative Shelley Berkley of Nevada is a co-sponsor of my bill.
Brief History of the Effects of Daylight Saving Time
Mr. Chairman, throughout history, Congress has adjusted daylight saving time to conserve energy in times of crisis. The energy crisis that grips California calls for this unusual, but not unprecedented, step to ease the burden on the California power grid.
When daylight saving time was first enacted by Congress in 1918, its purpose was to conserve resources for the war effort. During World War II, the United States observed daylight savings time year-round from 1942 to 1945 for the same reason. And, in the 1970's, Congress extended daylight saving time in response to various energy crises.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following the extension of daylight saving time in 1974, Congress directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study on the effects of the extended daylight saving time. The DOT study released in 1975 made a number of conclusions. The following list is not inclusive of the entirety of the report conclusions.
Daylight saving time saves energy. DOT estimates that observing daylight saving time in March and April saved the equivalent in energy of 10,000 barrels of oil each day—totaling 600,000 barrels each year in 1974 and 1975.
Daylight saving time saves lives and prevents traffic injuries. Daylight saving time allows more people to travel home from work and school in the daylight, which is much safer than darkness. And, according to the DOT report, except for the months of November and December, daylight saving time does not increase the morning hazard for those going to school and work.
Daylight saving time prevents crime. Because people get home from work and school earlier and complete more errands and chores in daylight, daylight saving time seems to reduce people's exposure to various crimes, which are more common in darkness than in light.
Daylight Saving Time Saves Energy
Daylight saving time saves energy because it alters the time at which demand for electricity is at its peak. One of the peak demand periods for electricity occurs between 5:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m., when the sun sets and people come home from work. As people come home from work, their first inclination is to turn on a light. If people come home and it is light outside, there is less of an inclination to turn a light on. But pushing the sunset back one hour does not save the energy alone. Energy savings is realized because even with the time adjustment, people tend to go to sleep at the same time under daylight saving time as standard time. And, in the morning, whether it is light out or not, lights are turned on. People get ready for work and school. And, it takes the same amount of time to get ready to go to work or school under daylight saving time as it does under standard time.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Data analyzed by the DOT and the California Energy Commission (CEC) supports the claim. The 1975 DOT report estimated that year-round daylight saving time resulted in approximately 1% reduction in energy consumption.
When I introduced H.R. 704 earlier this year, I contacted the California Energy Commission and asked them to consider the effects of extended daylight saving time and double daylight saving time in the summer. I understand that they will provide written testimony for the record; however, I want to note two point of information that they shared with me when I made my initial inquiry.
According to CEC econometric analysis, daylight saving time would save California about 500 MWh in the spring months with extended daylight saving time.
Results of the CEC study on daylight saving time's ancillary benefits during the spring months are consistent with the 1975 DOT report.
Daylight Saving Time Saves Lives and Prevents Traffic Injuries
Daylight saving time saves lives and prevents traffic injuries, allowing more people to travel home from work and school in the daylight, which is much safer than darkness. And, according to the DOT report, except for the months of November and December, daylight saving time does not increase the morning hazard for those going to school and work.
The 1975 DOT report states that ''after the nation goes on daylight saving time there is one hour more of darkness in the morning and one hour less in the evening.'' The DOT hypothesized that there should be an increase in morning fatal accidents and a decrease in evening fatal accidents. Since there are more fatal events in the evening, daylight saving time should produce a net decrease in the total number of fatal accidents.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to the report, as a result of daylight saving time, there was a net reduction of .7% in fatal motor vehicle accidents during the daylight saving time period, March and April 1974, compared to the non-daylight saving time period March and April 1973. It is estimated that 50 lives were saved and 2,000 injuries avoided during this two month period as a result of daylight saving time.
The report found daylight saving time negatively effected the rate of school children fatalities in November and December only. In fact, the report demonstrated that daylight saving time reduced the number of school children fatalities by between 18%–40% in March, April and October 1974.
Daylight Saving Time Prevents Crime
The 1975 DOT study included the results of a study that was conducted on Los Angeles and Washington, DC by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). While the data on Los Angeles were inconclusive, the Washington, DC data show consistently less violent crimes (–10%––20% decline) for daylight saving time periods when compared with similar periods of standard time. Statistics on other crimes were less significant and less reliable.
Keeping Our Children Safe
Extended daylight saving time proposals are often criticized because in some parts of the country they cause children to wait for school buses in the dark—or at least go to school in the dark. I would like to take a moment to note that under the double daylight saving time proposal that I advocate this would not be the case.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under the proposal that I advocate, the sun will not rise later in Los Angeles during double daylight saving time periods than it does in Minneapolis, MN during standard time. Simply put: if California were to move to double daylight saving time from the first Sunday in May through the Sunday before Labor Day, the sun would rise at approximately 7:16 a.m. at the latest point in August. During the cold of winter, when Minnesota observes standard time, it is not unusual for the sun to rise at 7:44 a.m. or later.
The following charts illustrate this point further. The first chart describes the average sun rise and sun set times in Los Angeles for year-round Standard Time (ST), year-round Daylight Saving Time (DST) and year-round Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST). Bold indicates the average sun rise and sun set under current law. The average time does not take into consideration the effect of partial DST in April and October. The table treats April and October as being on DST the entire month.
The second chart describes the average sun rise and sun set times in Minneapolis, MN, factoring in daylight saving time as it is observed under current law. As you can see from comparing the charts, if we move California to double daylight saving time in the summer months, the sun will rise earlier than it does at the latest time in Minnesota. Indeed, the sun would rise in Los Angeles under my double daylight saving time proposal earlier than Minnesota's average sun rise in three different months.
73325b.eps
73325a.eps
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee will hear testimony today which will—in greater detail than I can address—describe the scientific effects of extending daylight saving time or providing for double daylight saving time in the summer. This issue is important to California because of what is likely to happen in the months ahead: people in my state are going to die this summer as a result of the energy crisis, and I firmly believe that taking a step such as changing the time could save lives.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and receiving my testimony. If I can be helpful to you on this issue in the future, please do not hesitate to call upon me.
BIOGRAPHY FOR CONGRESSMAN BRAD SHERMAN
Education: Harvard Law School, J.D., 1979 Magna Cum Laude; UCLA, B.A., 1974, Summa Cum Laude
Licenses: Certified Public Accountant (CPA) California; Attorney, California State Bar; Certified by California State Bar as Tax Law Specialist
Public Service: 1991—
Elected to the U.S. House of Representatves in 1996 from California's 24th Congressional District, which stretches from Sherman Oaks to Thousand Oaks.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Serves on the Committee on Financial Services, and its
Subcommittee on Capital Markets Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade
Also serves on the Committee on International Relations, and its
Subcommittee on Europe
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia
Served on the Budget Committee, 1997. On that Committee, authored the Sherman Amendment to the Budget Resolution providing an additional $700 million for the acquisition of environmentally important lands in FY '98. The Sherman Amendment was included in the Joint Budget Resolution and effectuated by a $699 million appropriation. Sherman also secured $6 million to complete the Backbone Trail through the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
Strong advocate for fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, federal aid to education, the interests of working families, strong environmental standards, expansion of national parks, and policies to expand U.S. exports.
Elected to the California State Board of Equalization in 1990, re-elected in 1994. Chairman of the Board 1991 to 1995. Lead the successful fight to repeal the snack tax.
Private Sector Experience: 1974–1991
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Participated as a staff member of a big-six CPA firm in the financial audits of large businesses and governmental entities; provided tax law counsel on multi-million dollar transactions; provided tax and investment advice to entrepreneurs and small businesses; helped represent the Government of the Philippines under President Aquino in a successful effort to seize assets of deposed President Marcos. Instructor, Harvard Law School International Tax Program. Member of the Board of California Common Cause, 1985–1989.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much for your testimony. You mentioned the benefits to the factory worker of Double Daylight Saving Time. In a former life, I ran a homebuilding company, and in the summer, we started our work at 6 a.m. and worked through without lunch until 2 to get in our 8 hours because it was more comfortable to forego lunch and avoid the heat of working after 2. So this is just one of the benefits that would accrue to people who work without air conditioning. And obviously, you build houses without air conditioning.
Let me turn now—the bells have gone off for a 15-minute vote, but we have at least 5 minutes. Let me turn to my Ranking Member for her comments and questions.
The Effect of Daylight Saving Time on School Children
Ms. WOOLSEY. I will just be short because Brad has to go vote, also.
You did acknowledge that Daylight Saving Time could have some negative benefits to schoolchildren. Is it at all reasonable to consider moving the start of the school day? Would that raise more problems than it would solve?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHERMAN. Frankly, I think very few schoolchildren start so early that it would be a problem at all. As I say, Double Daylight Saving Time beginning in May, it would still be lighter in May than it was on a school day in February. So I don't think the Double Daylight Saving Time during the late spring and during the summer would run into this problem at all. But you are absolutely right, every school district needs to adjust its schedule to the needs of parents, students, safety, and everything else. And if you happen to be in an area where due to, perhaps, year-round Daylight Saving Time, which is another proposal, it didn't get light in your community until 7:30, then maybe you don't want to start class until 8:30, and an awful lot of classes don't start until 9 a.m., and then it is not a problem at all.
Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank you for yielding.
Just a quick comment on that. There is a growing movement to start schools later on the basis that many children are not getting enough sleep, particularly, in the junior high and senior high years, because they tend to stay up too late the night before. And so there is a movement to start school later, regardless of this. The difficulty, of course, you get into then is another political problem. A lot of parents, where you have two-parent families, they both work. They do not want the kids going to school later. They want to take them to school on their way to work. So it is very difficult to change society, but of all the many decisions we make around this place, and spending billions of dollars for various things, the issues around this will probably be far more emotional and better understood by most citizens than anything else we do.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I yield back.
Ms. WOOLSEY. All right, and I yield back, too.
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you. I saw an analytical analysis of probable schoolchildren deaths, and that indicated that Double Daylight Saving Time would produce fewer deaths, and that was simply because in the morning, drivers are rested with probably little alcohol in their blood. It is a more condensed rush hour than in the afternoon, and their judgment was that it would save lives rather than put lives at risk.
Mr. SHERMAN. I think if you focus on both the morning, where you are giving up an hour of daylight, hopefully, before people are out on the street anyway; but if you weigh that with the tremendous savings you have in accidents and crime in the evening, that on balance, either proposal, year-round or double in the summer, will save lives and reduce accidents.
Chairman BARTLETT. Or both. You can have year-round Daylight Saving Time, and then Double Daylight Saving Time in the summer, and so there are several different options to look at.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
Chairman BARTLETT. Mr. Wu, do you have an observation or question?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that my question for Congressman Sherman is, really, based on my personal experience with year-round Daylight Saving Time during the energy crunch of 1973-75. And this is, admittedly, based on the biorhythms and schedules of an early stage college student at the time. But it is my distinct impression that I experienced a whole lot more darkness at that time because I was getting up in the dark and finishing up in the dark. Is it correct that, analytically, the accident rates and death rates are actually lower with year-round Daylight Saving Time as opposed to the system that we have right now, as the Chairman indicated just a moment ago?
Mr. SHERMAN. The studies I have cited in my statement indicate that, yes. You seem to have been working extraordinary hours during those student years.
Mr. Wu. I was misguided in the hard work direction, I think, in my youth.
Mr. SHERMAN. Perhaps we would need the experience of someone who lived during that period and led a more typical life to evaluate the effects.
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BARTLETT. Dr. Ehlers, do you have other comments before we recess?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. EHLERS. No, Mr. Chairman. In view of the fact that we have a vote on, I will withhold any further questions or comments.
Chairman BARTLETT. Well, let me thank our witness. Thank you very much for your foresight in proposing this legislation and thank you very much for your testimony today.
And we will be in recess now until after the vote.
Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you for holding these hearings.
[Recess]
Chairman BARTLETT. Let me reconvene our hearing and welcome our second panel. And we have just had good news for you, maybe bad news for us. There will be no votes until 5:00, and then at 5:00, we will learn whether we are here all weekend or not. But at least our hearing will not be further interrupted by votes.
We welcome Ms. Linda Lawson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. James Benfield of Bracy Williams and Company. Thank you very much for coming to testify. Ms. Lawson?
Oh, let me note that, without objection, your written testimony will be included in the record, and we would encourage you to limit your verbal remarks to 5 minutes, with the assurance there will be more than enough time during the question and answer period that follows to amplify anything that you wish to amplify. Thank you very much. You may begin.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENTS OF LINDA LAWSON, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES C. BENFIELD, BRACY WILLIAMS & COMPANY
Ms. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the energy conservation potential of Daylight Saving Time.
My testimony concerns U.S. Department of Transportation studies of extending Daylight Saving Time from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in March. We did not look at extending Daylight Saving Time beyond this period or at Double Daylight Saving Time. I want to note that these studies are over 25 years old and were based on a limited sample. Congress captured many of the benefits identified in our studies in the legislative changes enacted in 1986. There have been changes in lifestyle and commerce since we completed our studies.
Time observance affects almost every aspect of life. Any proposed time change will have consequences beyond impacts on energy conservation. Following the use of Daylight Saving Time during the World War I and II, states and local jurisdictions were free to begin and end Daylight Saving Time on any dates they chose. This resulted in a crazy quilt system of observance. For example, 1 year in the Twin Cities, St. Paul, Minnesota observed Daylight Saving Time while Minneapolis did not.
Because of the widespread confusion and detrimental impact on commerce, Congress adopted the Uniform Time Act of 1966. The Act provided national uniformity for the beginning and ending dates of Daylight Saving Time and an opt-out provision for any state that does not want to observe. In response to the oil embargo in the early 1970's, Congress legislated that the U.S. observe Daylight Saving Time from January to October 1974 and from February to October in 1975. Congress also directed DOT to study the effect of extending Daylight Saving Time to the first Sunday in March. After a decade of discussions and Congressional hearings in 1986, Congress changed the beginning date of Daylight Saving Time from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me briefly summarize the most important findings of our studies. We concluded that Daylight Saving Time might save—might result in electricity savings of 1 percent in March and April. These savings were calculated from Federal Power Commission data for only four Daylight Saving Time transitions. Lack of data precluded estimation of net energy savings.
We were able to identify a .7 percent reduction in traffic fatalities due to Daylight Saving Time in March and April 1974, resulting in 50 lives saved. There was widespread public concern over the safety of children traveling to schools in dark mornings. 1974 public opinion polls found that 38 percent of respondents expressed concern for school age children safety during year-round Daylight Saving Time compared to only 7 percent concerned in March and April.
From January to April 1974, the Department studies found that school age children were not subject to greater involvement in fatal accidents than the general population at any period of the day. However, a 1976 National Bureau of Standards study concluded that morning school age children fatalities increased during January and February. Therefore, the Department took the position that Daylight Saving Time in January and February might increase school age fatalities in the morning.
The DOT studies found a reduction in violent crimes of 10 to 13 percent in Washington, D.C. Popularity of extended Daylight Saving Time varied widely among different age groups and geographic locations. Most people oppose Daylight Saving Time in winter; especially, in January and February, because it resulted in late sunrises. In addition to parents' concerns about the increased risk to school age children, parents of young children found it difficult during the transitional periods to get their children to sleep. Members of some religious faiths objected because their observances were tied to sunrise and sunset. Farmers preferred earlier sunrises.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Based on historic experience, the Department believes that it is critical to have national uniformity for Daylight Saving Time observance. Under the current system, an area either observes Daylight Saving Time on the federally mandated dates or stays on Standard Time year-round. Clear and consistent time observance is crucial for maintaining transportation schedules. It is also critical for ensuring safety when, for example, the same railroad tracks are used for trains heading in both directions. Consistency has become more important over the years with globalization, just in time delivery, and the widespread use of computer programs with embedded Daylight Saving Time changeover dates. Daylight Saving Time observance has important consequences in many contacts and agreements.
Before making changes to Daylight Saving Time, we suggest that further study and consultation with affected constituencies is needed. Because of the impacts on transportation scheduling and telecommunication, we would recommend that any change be publicized in advance with public notice both in the U.S. and worldwide.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you would have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lawson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA L. LAWSON
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the energy conservation potential of daylight saving time.
Part of my testimony today concerns U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) studies of the effect of extending daylight saving time. I want to note that these studies are over 25 years old and were limited in scope. Congress captured many of the benefits identified in our studies in the legislative changes to daylight saving time enacted in 1986. 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.
Time observance affects almost every aspect of life and any proposed time change will have many consequences beyond any impacts on energy conservation. Any change needs to be carefully and fully considered at a national level after consultation with all the affected constituencies. Because of the impacts on transportation scheduling and telecommunications, any change needs to be made well in advance with plenty of public notice both in the U.S. and worldwide. Before taking any legislative action, we suggest that further study and consultation with affected groups is needed.
Current Statutory Requirements
The Uniform Time Act, as amended, gives the Secretary of Transportation two different responsibilities concerning time observance. First, the Secretary has authority to change a time zone boundary if he or she finds that such a change would ''suit the convenience of commerce.'' Under DOT procedures, the Department only begins a time zone change rulemaking proceeding upon the request of a State or local jurisdiction. Normally, DOT holds one or more hearings in the area and provides 60 days for the public to comment in writing to the docket.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, the Secretary has responsibility to make sure that states that choose to observe daylight saving time begin and end on the Congressionally-mandated dates, which are the first Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. A State may, however, exempt itself from daylight saving time observance and observe standard time year-round. If a State is in two time zones, it may observe daylight saving time in the portion of the state that is in one time zone and standard time in the other portion of the state. Currently, Arizona, Hawaii, the Eastern Time Zone portion of Indiana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam do not observe daylight saving time.
There are nine time zones in the United States, and four in the contiguous 48 States. When a State observes daylight saving time, it is the equivalent of moving one time zone to the east.
History of DST
The United States observed Daylight Saving Time during World War I, and year-round daylight saving time during World War II. In the post war periods, States and local jurisdictions were free to observe, or not observe, daylight saving time, beginning and ending on any dates they chose. During this period, there was a ''crazy quilt'' system of observance in which you could drive less than 100 miles and change back and forth in time observance many times.
Because of the widespread confusion and detrimental impacts on commerce, Congress adopted the Uniform Time Act of 1966. The Act provided national uniformity for the beginning and ending dates of daylight saving time, an ''opt-out'' provision for any State that does not want to observe, and an enforcement mechanism whereby DOT may go into Federal District Court to obtain an injunction against any jurisdiction not observing the correct time.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In response to the oil embargo in the early 1970s, Congress enacted the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act of 1973. As a result, in 1974, virtually all of the U.S. observed daylight saving time from January 6 to October 27, and in 1975, from February 23 to October 26.
Extended daylight saving time had very different impacts in different parts of the country. Its popularity also varied widely among different age groups and geographic locations. Most people opposed daylight saving time in winter, especially in January and February because it resulted in very late sunrises. Many parents were concerned about their children waiting for morning school buses in the dark as a result of any extension of daylight saving time. Others opposing daylight saving time included parents of young children who found it difficult during the transitional periods to get their children to sleep; members of some religious faiths, whose observances are tied to sunrise and sunset; and farmers.
In response to a Congressional request in the early 1970s, DOT prepared several comprehensive studies of the effect of extending daylight saving time from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in March. As I will discuss in a moment, the studies found that extending daylight saving time into March would provide modest energy savings, reduce traffic fatalities, reduce crime and provide afternoon light for recreation and chores.
After a decade of discussions and Congressional hearings, the most recent change to national daylight saving time observance occurred in 1986 when Congress changed the beginning date of daylight saving time from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To put this in an international perspective, most other countries in the world that are not located near the equator observe daylight saving time. Countries that are close to the equator do not have large seasonal variations in daylight and generally have little need for daylight saving time. Most of the Canadian provinces and Mexico begin and end daylight saving time on the same dates as the U.S. The European Union begins daylight saving time a week earlier on the last Sunday in March and ends at the same time as the United States.
Findings of the DOT Studies
Let me now briefly summarize the technical findings regarding daylight saving time benefits. The studies are over twenty-five years old and have not been updated.
Energy Savings
Our 1975 study concluded that daylight saving time might result in electricity savings of 1 percent in March and April, equivalent to roughly 100,000 barrels of oil daily over the two months. These savings were calculated from Federal Power Commission data for only four daylight saving time transitions—in the winter, spring and fall of the 1974–1975 experiment. Due to the limited data sample, the findings were judged ''probable'', rather than conclusive. Theoretical studies of home heating fuel consumption identified small savings due to daylight saving time. No potential increases in travel demand and gasoline use due to daylight savings time were identified at that time. The lack of actual data precluded an estimation of net daylight saving time energy savings.
Traffic Fatalities
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to traffic fatalities, we were able to identify a 0.7 percent reduction due to daylight saving time in March and April 1974 compared to the comparable months in 1973 when we were under standard time. At the time, DOT analysts believed that these estimates were conservative and that their calculations understated the real reduction due to daylight saving time, which they judged to be on the order of 1.5 percent to 2 percent.
School-Age Children Safety
Following the first-year's experiment with year-round daylight saving time in 1974, we recommended that only March and April be included in the second year's experiment because of the public's concern over the safety of children traveling to school in dark mornings. Results of public opinion polls conducted in 1974 showed that 38 percent of respondents expressed concern for school-age children's safety during year-round daylight saving time compared to 7 percent of respondents concerned with the issue during the 1975 March-April experiment.
Our final study contained results of both the Department of Transportation and the National Safety Council studies indicating that for the January-April 1974 period (i.e., under daylight saving time), school-age children were not subject to greater involvement in fatal accidents than the general population at any period of the day. A 1976 study of school age fatalities performed by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) used the same database as the Department of Transportation, but analyzed only a subset of the data and employed different statistical techniques. The National Bureau of Standards concluded that morning school-age children fatalities increased in January and February 1974 when daylight saving time was being observed, compared to the same period in 1973 when daylight saving time was not observed. No comparable increase in morning fatalities, however, was found for the March and April period. While the increase was statistically significant, the National Bureau of Standards judged it impossible to attribute it to daylight saving time or to some other factor (such as weather) or combination of factors. Because of the Bureau's findings, the Department subsequently took the position that daylight saving time in January or February might possibly increase school age fatalities in the morning.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Crime
With respect to the incidence of crime, study of daylight saving time impacts on the incidence of crime revealed reductions in violent crimes of 10 to 13 percent in Washington, D.C. throughout a 3-year period. Due to time constraints, only data for Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles were obtained for analyses. The data for Los Angeles were not sufficiently detailed to reveal a daylight saving time effect.
Changes in School Hours
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare advised that only a small number of schools in two Midwest and Western States adjusted school hours during March and April 1975 as a consequence of daylight saving time.
Other Effects
There were no measurable effects of daylight saving time reported by Federal agencies in the areas of agriculture, labor, and Federal park and recreational activities. Neither were there any reported effects on domestic or international commerce, with the exception of opposition to year-round daylight saving time by the construction industry, which favors an April through October period.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reported that daylight saving time caused audience losses of 2.5 percent of AM daytime radio stations from January through April 1974 and 1.5 percent during March and April 1975. Since the Commission's primary concern was daylight saving time's curtailment of AM morning radio service to listeners in certain areas of the country served by approximately 500 daytime stations operating on U.S., Canadian and Mexican clear channels, it supported the traditional six-month daylight saving time system or the enactment of specific provisions enabling the FCC to take remedial steps as appropriate.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As part of the 1970s studies, the Governors of the twenty-five States bordering or divided by time zone boundaries were asked whether these boundaries should be changed. It is significant that even though these States experience the latest in daylight saving time sunrises, the Governors, with one exception, favored retaining the present time zone boundaries. The exception advocated having only two continental time zones. Based on this survey, the Department did not recommend any change in the existing time zone boundaries.
Potential Impacts of a Change in Observance
There are a number of possible different daylight saving time observances. Another possibility is to move whole time zone boundaries to the west, which, in effect, would give those, changed areas year-round daylight saving time. Each has benefits and drawbacks.
There are a number of potential anomalies to some of the ideas being considered. Arizona currently does not observe daylight saving time. If California, or all of the Pacific Time Zone states, observes ''double daylight saving time'' while Arizona remained on Mountain Standard Time, those states would be one hour earlier than Arizona. A portion of Idaho is in the Pacific Time Zone, but is not covered by pending legislation that would allow west coast states to make whatever changes to time observance they deem necessary. Finally, a small portion of Oregon is in the Mountain Time Zone.
Based on historic experience, the Department believes that it is critical to have national uniformity for daylight saving time observance to prevent confusion and to facilitate commerce and communications. Under the current system, an area either observes daylight saving time on the federally-mandated dates or stays on standard time year-round. Before the Uniform Time Act of 1966, one could never be sure, especially in advance, what dates a jurisdiction might be observing. Clear and consistent time observance is crucial for maintaining bus, train, and airline schedules. In addition, consistent time schedules and observance are critical in assuring railroad safety because the same tracks often are used for trains heading in both directions. Consistency has become more important over the years with globalization, ''just in time'' delivery, and the widespread use of computer programs with embedded daylight saving time changeover dates.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Any change requires adequate lead-time and notice to accommodate transportation, telecommunications, and other schedules. Time observance also has important consequences in many contracts and agreements. Finally, we need to be mindful of impacts on international trade and commerce.
Before making changes to daylight saving time, we urge the Congress to consider the costs and benefits of such changes. As I have noted, DOT's studies are over 25 years old. New studies must consider impacts on uniformity, impacts on coordination of transportation and commerce, impacts on transportation safety, and net energy impacts. The studies must consider the impact of changes on electrical lighting use, heating energy use, air conditioning use, and transportation energy use, including the potential for increased travel demand resulting from more evening daylight and increased gasoline use.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
BIOGRAPHY FOR LINDA L. LAWSON
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy; Director, Office of Transportation Policy Development
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 10305, Washington, DC 20590
Experience:
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1998–2001 Director, Office of Transportation Policy Development, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
1988–1998 Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
1978–1988 Director, Office of Management and Data Systems, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
1968–1973 Computer Programmer, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce
Education:
1976 BA, George Washington University
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Benfield?
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. BENFIELD, BRACY WILLIAMS & COMPANY
Mr. BENFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Jim Benfield, and I am a partner with Bracy Williams and Company. In 1984, I founded the Daylight Saving Time Coalition, which led the successful effort to move the starting date of DST to the beginning of April. However, I am speaking today as a private individual.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During our 2-year campaign, we never used the argument that more DST would save energy. The energy savings, it was said, would result from the reduced use of electric lights because of the delayed sunset.
Part of the reason Arizona chooses not to observe DST is that many people go outdoors after sunset, when it is cooler. Observing DST in Arizona could encourage people to remain indoors longer and, perhaps, use more air conditioning.
A way to learn the benefits of year-round DST might be to study the energy consumption of counties on both sides of the same time zone boundary. Or compare the last week of March to the first week of April in regions where the weather conditions are very similar during that period.
I want to make a few broad observations. First, you cannot please everyone by changing DST. There are only so many hours of daylight. Some folks prefer it in the morning and some in the evening.
Second, most people do prefer to have their daylight in the evening, as long as they don't have to wake up in pitch darkness. If you can see the sunrise sneaking up, that is fine, but to wake up in total darkness is not popular.
Third, we should try to keep time relationships consistent with other parts of the country and the world. And I associate my remarks with yours. In that context, earlier this year there was a major effort in Indiana to start to observe DST, not to achieve more evening daylight, but to harmonize Indiana's clocks with the rest of the nation's.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let us look first at the idea of year-round DST. Daylight Saving Time is used to alter our daily schedules by tricking ourselves every spring into keeping the same clock schedule, but altering that schedule's relationship to the sun. That is obvious. We are diurnal creatures, which means we are active during the daylight hours. To suggest that we can trick our daily schedules 12 months a year belies logic. We would move our schedules, almost unconsciously and slowly, back to the natural rhythms of the sun, and thus, over the long-term, defeat the intended purpose of Daylight Saving Time.
Many people hated DST during the Arab oil embargo in 1974 and 1975, and I expect it would be equally unpopular again. Early January sunrises in Marquette, Michigan, Bismarck, Boise, Louisville, and Atlanta would occur after 8:40 a.m. and as late as 9:30 in Marquette.
Remember, millions of Americans already observe year-round DST because they have chosen to live in the wrong time zone. Can we see the map up there? We have got this facing the camera here. The orange areas of this map show how the time zone boundaries have been drawn to give these people lots of evening daylight. Year-round DST would face strong opposition from these areas.
School children safety would be enhanced—and I emphasize enhanced—with more DST, and I would welcome a question to expand on that point.
What about street crime? Because people feel safer on the streets with more daylight, they would feel more safe. And because more leisure time is spent outdoors in the evening than in the morning, we might see a slight reduction in street crime.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most farmers' work days are controlled by daylight. DST tends to delay the start or end of their work days by 1 hour, often making it more difficult to hold a second job in the evening.
What about Double Daylight Saving Time from, let us say, Memorial Day to Labor Day? We would have to change our clocks four times a year with the little intendant jet lag that we all experience, and I think it would be very unpopular.
I want to emphasize that Congress must retain all decision-making authority regarding the start and end dates of DST. State governments should retain only the authority to observe or not to observe DST, as stipulated in the Uniform Time Act, once again, associating my views with the Department's.
Finally, what about permanently merging the Pacific Time Zone into Mountain Time Zone? This, actually, kind of makes sense. This would, effectively, put the Pacific Coast on permanent DST. And this has, I think, real possibilities. This new zone, for clarity, should be called the Western Time Zone.
This change would facilitate commerce and communication in such areas as airline schedules, trading on the financial markets in New York, live television events such as Monday Night Football. It would mitigate the reporting of Presidential elections on the east coast, and it would help tourism. And the best part is it would eliminate almost 1,000 miles of time-line boundaries, which are always inconvenient if you live near them.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, year-round DST should not be observed unless the energy savings can be clearly proven to the public. Even if they can be proven, as is the case with 55 mile-an-hour speed limits, year-round DST will be unpopular in many regions of the country, particularly, in the western portions of each zone.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Benfield follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES C. BENFIELD
My name is Jim Benfield. I am a partner with Bracy Williams & Company. In 1984, I founded the Daylight Saving Time Coalition, which led the successful effort to move the starting date of DST from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April. We have observed that change since 1987. I am speaking today, however, as a private individual.
I am not here to advocate for or against any of the changes in DST that have been proposed. Rather, I want to identify some of the unintended consequences that will result from changing DST, some of which deserve further study before any action is taken. Some of the unintended consequences are positive, some negative and some neutral.
During our two year campaign to extend DST, we never used the argument that more DST would save energy because, in part, April is not a high-demand period for electricity. The energy savings, it was said, would result from the reduced use of electrical lighting because of the delayed sunset. Most experts will tell you, however, that home heating and cooling, refrigeration and water heaters consume far more energy than illumination.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A potential methodology to learn the benefits of year round DST is to study the energy consumption of counties on both sides of the same time zone boundary. For example, northwest Indiana, western Kansas, central Idaho/Oregon, Arizona/California. Or compare the last week of March to the first week of April in regions where the weather conditions were very similar during that period.
Part of the reason Arizona chooses not to observe DST is that many people go outdoors after sunset, when it's cooler. Observing DST in Arizona would encourage people to remain indoors longer—and, perhaps, use more air conditioning.
My purpose today is to focus on the unintended consequences of extending or doubling DST. However, I want to begin by making few broad generalizations. First, you cannot please everyone by changing DST. There are only so many hours of daylight. Some folks like it in the morning—like joggers; and some like it in the evening—like softball players.
Second, most people prefer to have their daylight in the evening, as long as they don't have to wake up in pitch darkness. Should you doubt this, simply look at the theoretical time zone boundaries, which lie 7b degrees to the east and west of the meridian used for each zone. That would be 75 W. (Philadelphia), 90 W. (St. Louis/New Orleans), 105 W. (Denver) and 120 W. (California/Nevada border). Millions of Americans, through local action (not Congressional), choose to live in a more easterly time zone permanently because they like afternoon daylight. Most of Indiana observes Central Daylight Time year round. But calling it that would be illegal under the Uniform Time Act of 1966. So Indiana moved itself into the Eastern Zone, then opted not to observe DST. Clever.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, if we're going to tinker with our clocks, we should try to keep time relationships constant with other parts of the country—and the world. There is now a strong movement in Indiana to observe DST, because Hoosiers are tired have having the time zone boundaries bounce back and forth between the Illinois and the Ohio borders, tired of watching Monday Night Football at different hours, and tired of having their schedules dictated by out-of-state time schedules—airlines, New York Stock Exchange hours, live television events, etc. See www.hoosierdaylight.com.
YEAR ROUND DST FOR THE WHOLE NATION
Daylight saving time is used to alter our daily schedules by tricking ourselves every spring into keeping the same clock schedule, but altering that schedule's relationship to the sun. We are diurnal creatures (as opposed to nocturnal), which means we are active during the daylight hours. To suggest that we can ''trick'' our daily schedules 12 months a year belies logic. We will move our schedules, almost unconsciously, back to the natural rhythms of the sun.
Many people hated extended DST during the Arab oil embargo when it was observed from January 6 to October 27, 1974, and from February 23 to October 26, 1975. Most people can handle getting up at dawn, but not in total darkness. Here are sunrise times under DST as they would occur during the first week in January, not on December 21, the winter solstice. Year round DST would be very unpopular.
73325c.eps
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
School Children Safety. Year round DST could save lives. The morning rush hour is shorter than the afternoon rush hour. Children and traffic follow a highly regimented routine in the morning. Drivers are rested.
By contrast, in the afternoon, many children are riding bicycles and enjoying unsupervised outdoor play. More drivers will have alcohol in their bloodstream in the afternoon than in the morning. The rush hour is longer and more irregular in the afternoon. And drivers are tired and in a hurry to get home. Fortunately, sun light improves the vision of these tired drivers.
Here is the problem. If a child is killed in the morning hours, there will be finger pointing at the bus driver, the school principal, the superintendent and at YOU for having voted for this change.
However, the fatal accident that is avoided because of more afternoon daylight will never be reported. The child whose life is saved because a driver slammed on the brakes in the nick of time will never see his photo in the news. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said in a 1993 report that about 200 lives could be saved annually if we observed year round DST—mostly pedestrians.
Street crime. People feel safer on the streets with more daylight. Because more leisure time is spent outdoors in the evening than in the morning, we might see a slight reduction in street crime. People will have more peace of mind taking evening walks.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Daytime AM Radio Broadcasting. Morning sign-on for daytime AM radio broadcasters will be delayed by one hour. This will hurt advertising revenue during drive-time in many parts of the country, particularly during the Christmas season. At a minimum, Congress should exempt the daytimers from having to delay sign-on for the additional hour caused by extending DST. However, the potential mixing of pre-sunrise radio signals is controlled by the laws of nature, not by Congress.
Farmers. Most farmers' work days are controlled by daylight. DST tends to delay the start or the end of their work days by one hour, often making it more difficult to go to meetings in the evening or hold a second job in town to make ends meet. Many farmers living in the western reaches of the Central Time Zone (ND, SD, NE, KS, OK and TX) prefer to live in the ''wrong'' time zone and enjoy de facto year round DST. If they preferred early sunrises, the time zone boundary between Central and Mountain Time could be moved east by administrative action. These farmers could be expected to be strong opponents of either double DST or year round DST.
Dairymen dislike DST because the change between DST and standard time causes disruptions in milking schedules. Some dairymen change milking schedules by five-minute increments over a two week period in April and October.
DOUBLE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
(Some people have suggested a second hour of DST from Memorial Day weekend to the Labor Day weekend.) The worst part of DST is changing clocks. It is disruptive to our bio-rhythms, and many people experience a form of jet lag for a week or more following the change in clock time. Under double DST, people would experience this jet lag four times a year. Many people find changing video tape players, automobile and computer clocks, stove clocks, and even digital wrist watches to be very difficult. For the visually impaired, changing ''talking'' wrist watches is virtually impossible.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Northern-tier states have enough seasonal variation in sunrises to theoretically justify double DST, but opposition would be strong in southern states.
Congress must retain all decision-making authority regarding the start and end dates of DST. State governments should retain only the authority to observe or not to observe DST, as stipulated in the Uniform Time Act of 1966. The underlying reason for passage of the Uniform Time Act was to eliminate different start and end dates for DST. Local option double-DST would be a disaster. Interstate and international communications, not to mention air travel, live television schedules and all kinds of weird inconveniences would crop up. If this committee is serious about considering this option, in-depth studies and extensive hearings need to be held.
Indiana/Arizona. If Congress should approve double DST, Indiana and Arizona should be forced to observe single DST because a two-hour time zone border would result along eastern and northern Indiana as well as between Arizona and New Mexico.
PERMANENT PACIFIC DST + MORE DST FROM APRIL TO OCTOBER
Moving the Pacific Time Zone into the Mountain Time Zone would effectively put the Pacific coast on permanent DST. This would have some positive benefits.
There is precedent for this action. Indiana effectively gave itself permanent DST by moving from the Central Zone into the Eastern Zone.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nomenclature. This new zone, for clarity, should be called the Western Time Zone. Nevada must join California, or be one hour behind both Utah and California, which would be very strange.
Pedestrian Safety and Crime. Same benefits as discussed previously.
Stock Markets. Brokers who now have to begin work when the New York Stock Exchange opens at 6:30 Pacific Time would get an extra hour of sleep, but they would have to work an hour later in the afternoon. Child care arrangements would have to be altered.
Airline Travel. The apparent clock time of a non-stop flight from Washington to Los Angeles would be three hours instead of two, while the return flight would be seven hours instead of eight. Airlines would have to modify arrival times to comply with late night noise abatement programs.
Live Sports. Monday Night Football would air from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m. in the far western states instead of the current 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.
Tourism. Generally, vacationers prefer their daylight in the evening rather than in the morning. This would help tourism in California.
Visually Impaired. People who suffer from retinitis pigmentosa and other retinal degenerative diseases (''night blindness'') likely would welcome this change.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Voting. During Presidential elections, early reporting of election results on the East Coast would have less of an impact on the West Coast because of the two-hour time differential between coasts.
Arizona Anomaly. California and Arizona would enjoy the same time for five months during the winter, but California would spring AHEAD of Arizona for the seven summer months.
Let's be clear about this. When it is 2:00 p.m. in Los Angeles in the summer under ''Western Daylight Time'' (WDT), it will be 2:00 p.m. Western Daylight Time in Denver (WDT) and 1:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time (MST) in Phoenix. Arizona would be the only state observing Mountain Time.
If the other three states now in the Pacific Zone join California and Nevada in the new Western Zone, this would facilitate communication. In particular, all of Idaho and all of Oregon would observe the same time. Currently, Oregon and Idaho have portions of their states in both Mountain and Pacific time zones.
SUMMARY
Year round DST should not be observed unless the energy savings can be clearly proven to the public. Even if they can be proven (as is the case with 55 mph speed limits), year round DST will be unpopular in many regions of the country, particularly in the western portions of each zone.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
More DST likely would save lives on the nation's highways—mostly pedestrians, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. In addition, the fear of street crime could be reduced in urban settings.
The option of moving the Pacific Time Zone into the Mountain Time Zone would permanently reduce the number of zones observed in the continental United States. Initially, the public would take time to adjust, but in the long term, this action could prove quite popular with many people. This change should not be done under the belief that it necessarily will save energy, however.
Prior to 1883, we observed about 55 times zones! We reduced the number to four by law in 1918. Merging the Pacific Zone into a new Western Zone (same as Mountain Time) would result in three zones.
China, which spans the distance of five time zones, and India, which spans the distance of three time zones, both observe a single time.
NON-ENERGY CONSIDERATION FOR MORE DST
Start DST on the last Sunday in March. The starting date for DST should be moved to the third Sunday in March, which would harmonize the observance of DST in the United States with the starting date of DST in western Europe. Because the last Sunday in March falls after the vernal equinox, the mornings would still be lighter than those observed under DST during late September and October.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The provinces of Canada likely would follow our lead on DST, as they did in 1986 following our decision to observe DST in April. DST decisions are made at the provincial level in Canada. Mexico likely would adjust its schedule also, even though latitudes that far south do not justify DST, and the time zones in Mexico are skewed very far to the west, giving most Mexican states a de facto DST, already.
73325d.eps
The views expressed in this testimony are those of James C. Benfield and do not necessarily represent the views of the associations listed here.
BIOGRAPHY FOR JAMES C. BENFIELD
1982–present Founding partner, Bracy Williams & Company
1984–1986 Administered and lobbied on behalf of the Daylight Saving Time Coalition. Primary funding for the coalition was provided by The Clorox Company (parent of Kingsford Charcoal) and 7-Eleven Corporation (formerly The Southland Corporation).
Registered Lobbyist
The Business Alliance for International Economic Development (supporting increased foreign assistance)
The Campaign for Home Energy Assistance (supporting LIHEAP)
The Coin Coalition (supports broad circulation of the new $1 coin)
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In September 2000, I provided technical background used for the movement to bring daylight saving time to Indiana. I did not lobby members of the U.S. Congress or the Indiana legislature on this issue.
I have received no federal grant or contract that is relevant to this testimony.
James C. Benfield, Bracy Williams & Company, 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 900-South, Washington, DC 20005; 202–783–5594; jcbenfield@aol.com
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you both for your testimony. Let me turn now to our Ranking Member, Ms. Woolsey.
The Effect of Daylight Saving Time on School Children
Ms. WOOLSEY. I am more confused than I was when we started.
I would like to give you the opportunity, Mr. Benfield, to expand on child safety and Daylight Saving Time.
Mr. BENFIELD. Thank you very much. One of the positive events is that it could save lives. The morning rush hour is shorter than the afternoon rush hour. Children and traffic follow a highly regimented routine in the morning and drivers are rested. Contrast that with the afternoon. Many children are riding bicycles and enjoying unsupervised outdoor play. More drivers will have alcohol in their bloodstream, the rush hour is long and more irregular in the afternoon, and drivers are tired and in a hurry to get home. Now, fortunately, sunlight improves the vision of these tired drivers. So if you can choose, where should we—how can we reduce these accidents, you would choose to put sunlight in the afternoon.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Here is the problem, and Congressman Sherman hit it right on the head. If a child is killed in the morning hours, there will be all kinds of finger-pointing, at the bus driver, at the school principal, at the superintendent, and at you for having voted for this change. However, the fatal accident that is avoided because of more afternoon daylight, it will never be reported. The child whose life is saved because a driver slammed on the brakes in the nick of time will never see his photo in the news. And even with all this education, I encounter people who are afraid to fly, and they like to drive a car—''because I just don't feel safe in an airplane''. You can show them all the statistics in the world, and at the end of the day, they are going to get in their car and drive because they just don't like to fly—and I think you will experience the same type of thing that parents will object to the dark mornings and they will petition their school boards to change the start dates of schools. And that is what I was talking about. You can change the clocks, but there will be this gradual push to get it back to the way it was before.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Ms. Lawson, do you have any comments on child safety beyond what you have already said?
Ms. LAWSON. I really don't have any additional comments.
Estimating the Effects of Double Daylight Saving Time
Ms. WOOLSEY. You know, I have done a very unscientific survey in my district by just asking everybody I know, what would you think of Double Daylight Saving Time? And every single answer has been not what they think of it but what they think other people will think of it. Well, yeah, that would be all right, but you will hear what the opposition will be. So I found that very curious. Of course, I am in California, and we are having an energy crisis, and I came at it from a way to save energy.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How are we going to find out how much energy this could save, because that is what it has got to be based on if we are going to, you know, argue the benefits, we have got to know what those benefits are. And your data, Ms. Lawson, is too old?
Ms. LAWSON. I would say it is very old and it was also for a very limited time. We only looked at four transitional dates. I would suggest that my colleagues at the Department of Energy might be able to provide more information on this.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Benfield is going to show us something.
Mr. BENFIELD. This is what I meant in my testimony when I said compare counties. One might take a county—you wouldn't want to pick a state border, because they might be served by a different energy company, but let us take these four counties in Kansas. You might look at these counties in the white area and these counties in the orange. These people here have almost an hour more daylight every evening, so one would expect to see an energy saving in these households, but not in these households.
Up here in Oregon, you have a huge county in Oregon that is in Mountain Time. Maybe you could compare these counties to this county. They are cheek to jowl, they are served by the same energy company, and so if there are energy savings, we ought to be able to detect it here, and here, maybe in an industrial area up in Indiana versus a Chicago area, you would see people would be saving more energy than these.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WOOLSEY. Just as it is right now?
Mr. BENFIELD. Yes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. I mean, using—not changing anything.
Mr. BENFIELD. You don't have to change anything, because there is an hour difference in sunsets between these two points—maybe about 58 minutes or 55 minutes, but very close to an hour difference. So if you can detect energy savings, go for it. Personally, I will be very, very surprised if you do. But that would be a mechanism.
The other would be something that we actually did when we looked at economic benefits. I remember the fast food industry, Hardees, looked at the first week of May versus the last week of April, Standard Time versus Daylight Saving Time, and they were blown away when they saw the difference. They saw an increase in sales of $880 per store per week on the last week of Standard versus first week of Daylight Saving Time, and as a result, McDonalds and a lot of those organizations became extremely active in our effort to pick up April. I was able to get both Idaho senators to vote for Daylight Saving Time on the basis of selling more French fries because they supply potatoes.
So it is kind of humorous and you can laugh at it, but it shows that I was able to get two votes from Idaho based on French fries and connected it to Daylight Saving Time. And if you can see the economic patterns as being highly complex and all these unintended consequences, I suggest that the energy issue may be every bit as complex, that you will push it down here, and it will pop up over here for another reason.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask a question after you ask your question.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Year-Long Daylight Saving Time and Double Daylight Saving Time
Chairman BARTLETT. Thank you very much.
I think it would be productive to kind of prepare two columns; one, the potential advantages of year-long Daylight Saving Time and Double Daylight Saving Time in one column, and in the other column, the disadvantages. Let us first try to list the advantages or potential advantages of increased Daylight Saving Time.
Clearly, the issue that brought us here is energy, and I have read all of the testimony, and from everything I can hear and understand, there is a potential to save energy, both overall energy use and peak demand. And peak demand may be more important than overall energy use since that is what is causing the brownouts and blackouts in California. So we can list that as a positive.
What other—reduced crime—I think there is no question but that crime is going to be reduced. I also understand that highway fatalities are reduced. Okay? So we have got reduced energy demands, we have got reduced crime, we have got reduced highway fatalities.
Are there other certain positive benefits that accrue to it?
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BENFIELD. I want to step on—or make a comment on the highway safety. That is a very, very good study. That is not too theoretical. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, I think, looked at a 5-year period. They looked at the fatalities in 3,000 counties. That is not theoretical at all. They were working with real numbers, and they said it was about 200 lives per year would have been saved if there were year-round Daylight Saving Time; mostly, pedestrians. However, they avoided saying whether they were children or not, but that is probably the best number. So it is a very powerful argument to argue against the schoolchildren safety issue. I just wanted to emphasize that.
Chairman BARTLETT. Well, thank you. So those are three pretty potent positives. Most of the other things that I can think of are emotional things. Lots of people would prefer to have more sunlight in the evening. Most people don't want to get up in the dark in the morning. But those are more emotional things and they are objective things. Are there some definitive objective things that can be placed in the negative column, reasons you wouldn't want to do it?
Ms. LAWSON. Well, we really don't know about the energy use, and there is a potential for increased travel demand and, therefore, increased gasoline consumption. We don't know whether that exists or not. Our data was not good enough to identify any increased travel demand. So there is a potential there for increased energy use overall.
Increasing Public Awareness
Chairman BARTLETT. There is one positive that I would like to mention, and I don't know how potent it would be. I think it is real. And that is that it would remind people that we have an energy problem, that they need to pay attention. And when we look at the enormous benefits that accrue to conservation and efficiency after the Arab oil embargo, that is, potentially, the best reason for doing it, because it would get peoples' attention. They would say, oh, yes, we do have an energy crisis. Don't we? And they would change their behavior.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you look at a graph of energy use as it would have been if things had gone on as usual after the Arab oil embargo and what it is now, you see enormous reduction in energy use as a result of two things. One of them is unfortunate; that is, the movement of industry overseas, energy using industry overseas. Ultimately, we will pay a price for that, because we all breathe the same air, and there are less environmental constraints over there, which is one of the reasons they went there. But the other really big thing is efficiency, conservation. And it is kind of hard to separate those two. People are negative about conservation. They view that as freezing in the dark while efficiency is a good thing that is making better air conditioners and refrigerators. But we have a lot of conservation. I don't know anybody who froze in the dark after the Arab oil embargo.
So I think that getting peoples' attention is important. It could have even bigger benefits than the actual net savings that result from the time shift.
Mr. BENFIELD. I agree 100 percent. That is a very, very good point.
Ms. LAWSON. That was the reason, I think, that the action was taken by Congress in 1973. I would just like to remind Congress that there was in effect then, originally, when the Daylight Savings went in in 1974, it was supposed to be year-round, and Congress then changed it to have a period of time, of Standard Time, from November 1974 through January 1975, because people did dislike Daylight Saving and the dark. So I mean, did dislike Daylight Saving Time during the winter months. So there was a reaction. There was exactly the response that you mentioned. There was more attention to energy conservation, however, there was a change by Congress at that time.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman BARTLETT. But don't you think that with the knowledge that we face a real energy crisis in this problem, that there might be a different reaction to that today? The oil embargo went away pretty quickly; as soon as oil started coming in, there were no more lines at the gas pumps, and the prices dropped, and so forth. I think that today's problem is going to be more sustained and will keep the attention of the people over a longer period.
Let me turn now to my colleague for her comments and questions.
Effects on the Dairy and Wine Industries
Ms. WOOLSEY. My district is made up of, besides high tech companies, wine and dairy industry.
Mr. BENFIELD. Let us talk about dairy. You have to separate them from other farmers. And I got a lesson when I was on a TV talk show and I had a dairy farmer, and he said, you have never been on a dairy farm, obviously, Mr. Benfield. They say that if you alter the milking schedule by 1 hour, you will see a production change. And so what the dairy farmer does is he alters his milking schedule by 5 minutes a day over approximately 2 weeks to get back to that, let us say, 7 a.m., 7 p.m. milking schedule, and he does that twice a year. In order to stay on his clock schedule, he moves the cow's milking schedule over this 2-week period. He will tolerate doing that twice a year. Do it to him four times a year and he is going to be a very unhappy camper.
Chairman BARTLETT. If the lady would yield? I ran a dairy so I know about dairy, and none of the cows that I had could read a clock. So I am not sure why the dairyman is changing his hours at all. And the fellow who came to get the milk, you know, he came when he came. If it was during milking, he picked up the milk while I was milking. So you know, I don't know why this should be a problem to the dairymen, you know. Just keep the cows on a schedule that they are happy with, and they can't read the clock, and they won't know.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I yield back.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, the cows in my district, because we have the best educated district in the country, probably can read the clock. No.
But when I asked my casual question to my dairy friends, they also say, well, you know, we have done it for Daylight Saving Time, we could do it year-round. I didn't ask about Double Daylight, though.
Considerations: Number of Time Changes Per Year, Informing the Public, Importance of Uniformity
Mr. BENFIELD. Year-round, as long as you go on once a year and come off once a year, you haven't really changed anything for the dairymen, so it would be a moot issue.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, year-round, they don't have to go on and off at all; they just go. I mean, once they are on. But then we change the double, and that would be, you know, on and off, once a year, because the double would not be year-round.
Mr. BENFIELD. That would be fine. Four times a year, not good; twice a year, probably——
Mr. WOOLSEY. Well, and what it really meant to them is their workers would be up and working in the dark, but the cows would be all right.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is all I have got for today. Thank you.
Chairman BARTLETT. Are there negatives other than personal preference, emotional, psychological negatives? We have listed some very potent positives in that column, and I am looking for equally definable negatives. And most of them that I can think of are personal preference, psychological, emotional.
Ms. LAWSON. I think that the point I made in my statement about being very careful to make sure that any changes were uniform and were announced well in advance so that transportation schedules could be prepared, telecommunications industry broadcasting schedules could be changed. I think that would be crucial.
The Administration has not offered any comments on the bill. I would be concerned that the way the language is written, each of the 4 states could choose to do something different, and at its most extreme, each state might choose to do something different. And therefore, you might in the Pacific Time Zone have 4 different adjusted times, and that could severely complicate any schedules.
Chairman BARTLETT. Did you perceive that by doing something different, they could have a half-hour or 15 minutes? My perception was that they either opt in or opt out, which is exactly what they can do now with Daylight Saving Time. Is it not?
Ms. LAWSON. My perception, the way the language was written, was that they could opt in and out at any date that they chose, so that they could each have—there could be—somebody could start in May, somebody could start in June—you know, that they could choose different dates.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman BARTLETT. Okay. So it was a time difference rather than a spatial difference that you were concerned with?
Ms. LAWSON. We are most concerned about the uniformity, states going on at the same time and going off at the same time.
Chairman BARTLETT. Yes. With the current Daylight Saving Time, you either opt in or opt out.
Ms. LAWSON. Yes.
Chairman BARTLETT. But you can't opt to start and stop at a different time.
Ms. LAWSON. Exactly.
Chairman BARTLETT. Okay. Which is why the Transportation Department has oversight here, because of schedules and so forth, and it affects everybody in every department of government, but somebody has to have responsibility, and this has been given to the Transportation Department, presumably, because of airline schedules and the difficulty of coordinating those, apparently.
Mr. BENFIELD. There is one other little potential with the year-round plus Double Daylight. I think you could wind up with a 2-hour time zone boundary between Arizona and New Mexico, and that would do very, very strange things indeed. So Arizona might want to consider observing single Daylight Saving Time to avoid a 2-hour boundary. You get into some funny little issues there.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman BARTLETT. What you are saying is, if you had permanent Daylight Saving Time and Double Daylight Saving Time in the summer, with the opt in or opt out provision, you could then get a 2-hour difference just across the street?
Mr. BENFIELD. Yes.
Chairman BARTLETT. That is one of the things that would have to be considered, certainly.
Mr. BENFIELD. When we extended time back in the late 1980's, mid 1980's, most of the Arizona delegation voted against it. They said our constituents don't like it, why don't we vote for more. Barry Goldwater took a different tact. He said, with California advancing its clock for an additional month, that means that the California and Arizona has the same time for an additional month. He said, California is our natural trading partner, so he voted for it. He had a very good understanding, and I thought that was a correct vote.
Effect on AM Radio Stations and Canada and Mexico as Trading Partners
Chairman BARTLETT. There is one other possible negative, but that might be resolved, simply, by the FCC, and that is the daylight stations. And they would now lose their morning drive-time advertising if some people were driving in the darkness. So that is one definable negative, but avoidable negative. Simply, they could be—of course, we can't control what sun does to communications, but we can control when people can broadcast and when they can't. There are some, if you listen to AM radios, obviously, problems that occur when the sun goes down.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. LAWSON. I would also like to note that our Canadian and Mexican trading partners are on the same time zone that we are on. I don't know whether that would create any issues or not.
Chairman BARTLETT. Presumably, they would follow our example, is what I am hearing.
Ms. LAWSON. I have no information.
Mr. BENFIELD. On the day-timers, I have talked to a friend who is an expert on these issues after I submitted my testimony. And he said that the use of the FM band for local radio has increased so much in the last 25 years that it is, virtually, a non-issue. Remember, your car radios, at one time, if you got FM, it was pretty neat, and then they charged you more for it. Now, you can't buy a radio that doesn't have an FM band. So FM is not sensitive to the daylight hours the way AM is.
Reliability of Past Studies
Chairman BARTLETT. I noted in the testimony that the National Bureau of Standards, in reviewing the Department of Transportation data, concluded that it was not certain from their analysis that you could reach the same conclusions. I gather that they weren't suggesting that different conclusions would be reached, but only that there maybe wasn't enough data to be certain that the conclusions DOT reached were appropriate.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. LAWSON. Well, they actually used a subset of our data and, actually, they did not attribute fatalities. They could not find any attribution—they said that there were an increase in fatalities, but they could not attribute it either to Daylight Saving Time or to any other factors, such as weather, such as a combination of other factors. So though they noted an increase, they could not identify a cause.
Chairman BARTLETT. They agreed that there was a correlation, but they just weren't certain as to what the cause and effect were? That is true in a lot of experiments, by the way, you know the positive correlation but aren't certain of cause and effect and you need additional studies to determine if there is, in fact, a cause and effect relationship.
Concluding Remarks and Limiting Time Changes to Twice Per Year
I gather that if we are going to Double Daylight Saving Time, we had better go to year-round single Daylight Saving Time to avoid the 4-time a year clock change. Is that what I am hearing?
Mr. BENFIELD. Yes, I would agree.
Chairman BARTLETT. Okay. The spring forward/fall back, people have learned that, but the double one, I think, would be disconcerting and more difficult.
Ms. Woolsey, do you have additional questions or comments?
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. WOOLSEY. No, sir.
Chairman BARTLETT. Okay. Well, I want to thank the witnesses very much for your testimony and for traveling to be with us today. This will be a continuing dialogue, and to the extent that you can by activity in your two separate domains contribute additional data that would be useful to us in deciding whether or not this would be a useful thing for America to do, we would certainly invite you to do that. Thank you for what you have contributed, and our meeting will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by the Majority Staff
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Post-Hearing Questions Submitted to Ms. Linda Lawson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Republican Members
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Q1. Recent reports in the press from California detail an 11 percent saving in electricity use. If this amount of saving can be realized, which represents a significant change in people's behavior attributable to the rising cost of energy, is there any value in considering changes to the current Daylight Saving Time schedule?
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1. Press reports about expected savings of 11 percent in electricity use due to changes in behavior are impressive. I am not aware of any evidence that indicate changes of electricity use due to Daylight Saving Time would result in such substantial savings. DOT's analysis of Daylight Saving Time (DST) conducted in the 1970s found savings in electricity demand to be on the order of 1 percent. These savings have been largely captured in our existing DST system. The recent study by the California Energy Commission found savings in electricity demand associated with DST ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 percent. Before considering DST changes, energy benefits need to be weighed against potential impacts on transportation safety, commerce, and communications associated with changes to DST. There may be other opportunities for greater energy savings than any potential savings related to DST.
Double Daylight Savings Time
Q2. What is your opinion on the value of Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST) in the summer to remind people to save energy of all kinds?
Do you think the additional daylight hour, which should assist people in saving energy, would be worth the effort of changing clocks twice more in the year?
A2. It is not clear that the public at large views DST as an energy conservation mechanism as much as a system that allows more daylight hours for evening summertime activities. Thus, without an associated public education campaign, adoption of DDST may not provide any significant reminder to conserve energy. DDST may not have broad public support. Many people—especially the elderly and those with young children—may find it difficult to adjust to a two-hour time change.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The recent California Energy Commission study on DST found that DDST in the summertime would likely result in a 0.2 percent reduction in electricity use and a 0.5 percent reduction in peak demand, although the report noted that there was a 25 percent likelihood that DDST would lead to increased electricity use. Potential energy savings need to be balanced with the need for traffic safety and a reasonable degree of uniformity in time observance as clear and consistent time observance is crucial for maintaining transportation schedules and facilitating communications. Finally, an anomaly may occur if California were to observe DDST and Arizona continues not to observe DST. In such a case, California would be one hour ahead of Arizona in the summer. In the past, both Congress and DOT have strongly opposed ''out of order'' time zones because of confusion and impacts on transportation, telecommunications, and commerce.
A New Western Time Zone
Q3. Mr. Benfield suggested merging the Pacific Time zone and the Mountain Time zone, creating a new zone called the Western time zone. The effect of this would be to put the states now in the Pacific Time zone, California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, on year-round daylight saving time, and double daylight saving time when they observed the daylight saving time schedule now observed. What is your opinion of this proposal?
A3. This suggestion would address the issue of uniformity, especially since the western states would all share the same time during the period of the year when standard time is in effect. An anomaly would occur during the summer months if Arizona continues not to observe DST. In such a case, the Pacific coast states will be an hour ahead of Arizona, resulting in a time pattern DOT has strongly opposed in the past.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Q4. Can you suggest any other scheme for DST/DDST? For example, what about having the whole country on year-round daylight saving time, with the provision, that at federally mandated times of change, in the spring and the fall, states could change –1, 0, or 1, hour at the states' option.
A4. Any system of time observance for the country needs to balance the need for a degree of uniformity and the public's desire to mesh its daily activities with the natural cycles of daylight. As noted above, clear and consistent time observance is crucial for maintaining transportation schedules and facilitating communications. At the same time, the public at large has not supported time schedules that result in beginning daily activities (e.g., going to work or school) during periods of darkness. Similarly, extended daylight hours that result in daylight at bedtime are not preferred.
Year-round daylight saving time has met with public resistance in the past due to the resulting wintertime late sunrises and resulting concerns such as children going to school in the dark. Additionally, year-round DST would put the U.S. out of sync with Canada and Mexico and other international trading partners and thus may have a negative effect on commerce. The particular proposal above, which allows individual states to move their time back or ahead one hour, could result in a confusing patchwork of times throughout the U.S., making coordination of transportation schedules and commerce very complex. In general, any DST system must be easy to understand and use.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
Q5. Congress acted to take control of the time change to eliminate confusion that existed when there were multitudes of local options. Do you think that it is possible to recreate the confusion that existed in this country on a worldwide basis?
Or, doesn't the time matter, as long as it is known what time is being used? For example, the military system uses letters to designate the time zones. [etc.]
A5. The Uniform Time Act has been effective at insuring a degree of uniformity of time observance within the U.S. It would be possible to create the patchwork of time zones that once existed here on a worldwide basis, but the global use of consistent time zones helps prevent such an undesirable patchwork. Clear designation of time zones, such as the use of variance from Coordinated Universal Time, is important in reducing confusion and facilitating communications and transportation scheduling. At the same time, it is important that the number of different local times in a particular region be kept to a minimum. The presence of differing time zones leads to complexities in facilitating communications, commerce, and transportation. Even with clear designation of time, a wide variety of local time zones will lead to an overly complex and cumbersome system.
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Q6. Please comment on the California Energy Commission study and Mr. Harris' written testimony.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A6. The California Energy Commission study found electricity savings of 0.2 to 0.5 percent associated with DST. The Department of Energy is currently reviewing the California Energy Commission study. We defer formal comments on this study until DOE releases its analysis.
Mr. Harris' testimony provides useful insight into the history of changes to daylight saving time, the potential implementation options for future amendments to DST, and our current understanding of the energy benefits of changes to DST. Mr. Harris' calculation of energy savings of DST based on data on the Fall and Spring transitions of the past few years seems to agree with the small savings predicted by both the previous DOT study and the recent California Energy Commission study. Mr. Harris adds that ''at present, there is no modeling result that has been published that reliably demonstrates a significant reduction in peak electric demand by adoption of Double Daylight Saving Time.'' He later states that ''the magnitude of modeled reductions in peak electric demand do not as yet justify adoption of Double Daylight Saving Time this summer.'' We agree that the existing studies do not justify adoption of extensive changes to DST.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Post-Hearing Questions Submitted to Mr. James C. Benfield, Bracey, Williams & Co.; Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Republican Members
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Q1. Recent reports in the press from California detail an 11 percent saving in electricity use. If this amount of saving can be realized, which represents a significant change in people's behavior attributable to the rising cost of energy, is there any value in considering changes to the current Daylight Saving Time schedule?
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1. Even under the current scheme of daylight saving time observance, the changing of the clocks is disruptive to daily routines and sleep patterns. Society accepts that disruption because of the perceived benefits of more evening daylight. Balancing the disruption of more DST against potential energy savings is a highly subjective task. With conservation measures taking hold in California, the perceived benefit of more DST is questionable.
Double Daylight Savings Time
Q2. What is your opinion on the value of Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST) in the summer to remind people to save energy of all kinds?
Do you think the additional daylight hour, which should assist people in saving energy, would be worth the effort of changing clocks twice more in the year?
A2. The symbolism of double DST definitely would be noticed, but the country would pay a steep price in missed appointments and travel connections for this symbol. In addition, there is not enough seasonal variation in the sunrises to offset the loss of morning daylight in southern states. For example, the sunrise in Orlando, Florida, on June 1 under double DST would be 7:28 a.m. and would be the darkest morning of the year at that latitude.
A New Western Time Zone
Q3. Mr. Benfield suggested merging the Pacific Time zone and the Mountain Time zone, creating a new zone called the Western time zone. The effect of this would be to put the states now in the Pacific Time zone, California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, on year-round daylight saving time, and double daylight saving time when they observed the daylight saving time schedule now observed. What is your opinion of this proposal?
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A3. As the author of this suggestion, I want to stress that merging the Pacific Time Zone into the Mountain Time Zone (to be called the ''Western Time Zone'') should be considered apart from any potential energy savings. If the change saves energy, so much the better—sort of a ''no regrets'' initiative.
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Q4. Can you suggest any other scheme for DST/DDST? For example, what about having the whole country on year-round daylight saving time, with the provision, that at federally mandated times of change, in the spring and the fall, states could change –1, 0, or 1, hour at the states' option.
A4. The only change that should be considered for the entire country is to begin DST on the last Sunday in March instead of on the first Sunday in April, as is practiced under current law. Coming after the vernal equinox, there is enough morning daylight to withstand the shift, and the change would harmonize the United States with Western Europe, which begins DST on the last Sunday in March. Under no circumstances, should states be given the option of observing alternate schemes of DST.
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
Q5. Congress acted to take control of the time change to eliminate confusion that existed when there were multitudes of local options. Do you think that it is possible to recreate the confusion that existed in this country on a worldwide basis?
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Or, doesn't the time matter, as long as it is known what time is being used? For example, the military system uses letters to designate the time zones. [etc.]
A5. There could be some minor confusion. Canadian provinces and Mexico likely would alter their schemes to adjust to any changes made in the United States. Canada changed its laws to harmonize with the April observance of DST in the United States in the mid-1980's.
Remember, the naming of the hours is an invention of man, and those names must convey meaning to different audiences for different purposes. Voluntary Standard Railway time went into effect in North America on November 18, 1883 to simplify railway schedules not only for the traveling public, but for the safe and efficient use of railroad tracks. Standard time did not become mandatory until 1918. The current system of naming the hours and time zones works quite well and should not be tinkered with, except, possibly, to combine the Pacific Time Zone with the Mountain Time Zone, as discussed in Q3.
The example used in Q5, ''10:00 A.M. (–4) in Washington D.C. on May 24'' sews confusion. Washington D.C. is five time zones removed from Greenwich, so should be considered in the ''–5'' time zone. The Washington, D.C. phone directory has a page dedicated to giving these clear and understandable numbers.
It is good to communicate how many time zones removed a location is from Greenwich, but the audience must make the additional calculation regarding daylight saving time. The folks at the phone company got this right.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Q6. Please comment on the California Energy Commission study and Mr. Harris' written testimony.
A6. I have relatively little expertise in this area and, thus, cannot comment.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Post-Hearing Questions Submitted to Mr. William J. Keese, Chairman, California Energy Commission; Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Republican Members
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Q1. Recent reports in the press from California detail an 11 percent saving in electricity use. If this amount of saving can be realized, which represents a significant change in people's behavior attributable to the rising cost of energy, is there any value in considering changes to the current Daylight Saving Time schedule?
A1. Yes, there is value because additional savings are possible. Californians have responded to the current energy situation in numerous ways. Some undoubtedly are attributable to the high costs of electricity. Others are attributable to the many new conservation and energy efficiency programs under way and a spirit of pulling together in adversity. Individually, each of these responses may be small, but collectively they have had a significant effect on our demand for electricity.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These efforts, however, do not significantly diminish the additional savings possible by extending Daylight Savings Time (DST). We estimate that the additional savings would still be approximately 89 percent of those estimated in our study. By allowing changes to the observance of DST, we would have another tool to help us manage our demand and cut electricity consumption.
Double Daylight Savings Time
Q2. What is your opinion on the value of Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST) in the summer to remind people to save energy of all kinds?
Do you think the additional daylight hour, which should assist people in saving energy, would be worth the effort of changing clocks twice more in the year?
A2. The California Energy Commission report includes an analysis of DDST, but does not examine these indirect effects.
A New Western Time Zone
Q3. Mr. Benfield suggested merging the Pacific Time zone and the Mountain Time zone, creating a new zone called the Western time zone. The effect of this would be to put the states now in the Pacific Time zone, California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, on year-round daylight saving time, and double daylight saving time when they observed the daylight saving time schedule now observed. What is your opinion of this proposal?
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A3. Merging all or part of the Pacific Time Zone (PTZ) with the Mountain Time Zone (MTZ) would have the same energy effects as winter DST. The above proposal, however, would remove the ability of the state(s) to elect when, and if, to observe DST when, and if, it were needed.
The legislation, on the other hand, gives the individual states the option equivalent to observing DDST during the period beginning on the first Sunday in April and ending on the last Sunday in October without the requirement that the PTZ states respond in a single fashion.
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Q4. Can you suggest any other scheme for DST/DDST? For example, what about having the whole country on year-round daylight saving time, with the provision, that at federally mandated times of change, in the spring and the fall, states could change –1, 0, or 1, hour at the states' option.
A4. The California Energy Commission report only examined the electric impacts of DST and DDST within California and found significant benefits. Although we would like for California to have the option to observe DST, we would be happy to work with any states and federal government representatives to consider additional alternatives.
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
Q5. Congress acted to take control of the time change to eliminate confusion that existed when there were multitudes of local options. Do you think that it is possible to recreate the confusion that existed in this country on a worldwide basis?
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Or, doesn't the time matter, as long as it is known what time is being used? For example, the military system uses letters to designate the time zones. [etc.]
A5. The confusion that existed, at least in part, was the result of local municipalities and counties adopting different options. The allowance of states to observe year-round DST or DDST during a particular period likely would not result in the confusion that existed, in some localities, prior to the current system. We have had quite a lot of experience, largely positive, with DST since then.
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Q6. Please comment on the California Energy Commission study and Mr. Harris' written testimony.
A6. (No response to this question was provided.)
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Post-Hearing Questions Submitted to Mr. William R. Harris, Attorney; Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Republican Members
Changes to Current Daylight Savings Time Arrangement
Q1. Recent reports in the press from California detail an 11 percent saving in electricity use. If this amount of saving can be realized, which represents a significant change in people's behavior attributable to the rising cost of energy, is there any value in considering changes to the current Daylight Saving Time schedule?
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1. There is no present need to adopt Double Daylight Saving Time in summer, because of significant shifts in the time-of-day demand for electric loads, combined with conservation incentives resulting from higher electricity prices. Moreover, the recent California Energy Commission modeling effort (May 2001) indicates that double daylight saving time may not reduce peak demand much beyond modeling uncertainties. So, there is no need for summer Double Daylight Saving Time in summer 2001.
During an era of inadequate generating capacity, the primary energy conservation goal for Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST) in summer or for extended daylight saving time in winter is to reduce peak demand, not average use.
Adjusting for weather but not economic growth, the average daily electric use in the California investor-owned service areas (CAISO) for the period January-July 2001, compared to January-July 2000, was: –5.9% (129,754 MWhr 2001; 137,825 MWhr 2000). Adjusting for weather and economic growth, the average daily electric use for the first seven months of 2001 was –8.2%, compared to the first seven months of the year 2000.
Much of this overall conservation may be attributable to price incentives as California utilities and the State of California seek to recover higher costs resulting from a deregulatory regime that concentrated ownership of generating capacity and until recently prohibited long-term supply contracts. Average costs per kilowatt hour of electricity in California for January through April 2001 were about 47 percent higher than in January through April 2000 (Energy Information Administration, DOE, July 2001). Even higher retail prices took effect in the summer of 2001.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beyond price-induced conservation, there has been significant ''altruistic conservation,'' through shifts in demand away from peak periods, even by customers who do not have and do not pay via time-of-day metering. The reduction in peak demand has far outpaced the average reduction in electric usage by California electric customers. This has reduced far beyond expectations the frequency of ''rolling blackouts'' in the summer of 2001.
California business and residential consumers significantly reduced electricity consumption at peak and peak shoulder periods in the first seven months of 2001. The California Energy Commission estimated (hypothetical) peak demand that accounts for variations in weather and (declining rates of) economic growth.
The California Energy Commission adjustments to actual demand peaks show the following changes in year 2001 monthly peak demand for electricity in the investor owned service areas that comprise over 90 percent of California's electricity use:
73325e.eps
Reductions in peak and peak-shoulder demand for electricity have significantly reduced incidents of involuntary load shedding (''rolling blackouts'') compared to Spring 2001 projections by the California Independent System Operator. These projections were below those of the North American Electric Reliability Council's 2001 Summer Special Assessment (California and the Pacific Northwest), published on May 15, 2001. There has been only one day of involuntary load curtailment in California between July 1st and August 15th.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Concurrently, consumers in the New York City and Long Island electric service region significantly reduced their daily peak consumption this summer. During an extraordinary heat wave in the second week of August 2001, the New York Independent System Operator experienced unprecedented demand, but was able to avert rolling blackouts through 5% voltage reductions and temporary closure of many government offices.
Because of changes in consumer behavior, there is no need to consider Double Daylight Saving Time for summer 2001.
Double Daylight Savings Time
Q2. What is your opinion on the value of Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST) in the summer to remind people to save energy of all kinds?
Do you think the additional daylight hour, which should assist people in saving energy, would be worth the effort of changing clocks twice more in the year?
A2. There is no need to adopt Double Daylight Saving Time as a daily conservation reminder. The publicity from actual ''rolling blackouts'' and from emergency notices by the regional Independent System Operators (California, New York, New England, etc.) has reinforced ''sticker shock'' from rising electric bills to induce overall electricity conservation, and shifts in time-of-day consumption away from system peaks.
The installation of time-of-day meters for large electric customers, and the adoption of smart appliances that can schedule time-of-demand away from system peaks, in combination with deployment of additional generating capacity and transmission lines should reduce summer load crises in the summer of 2002 and thereafter.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If there were a wintertime capacity emergency in year 2001–2002, extended daylight saving time could be a useful daily reminder that load-shifting to off-peak times of day is needed to avoid economic disruptions and hazards to health and safety. Public opinion accepts that there are ''real'' electric shortages in summertime. If the aging stock of electric generators serving California's electric markets experiences unexpected and extended down-time in the Winter of 2001–2002, and if Pacific Northwest rainfall does not offset the loss of hydroelectric capacity, there could be an unexpected electricity crisis in the winter of 2001–2002. Extended daylight saving time can both reduce peak demand (by 2 to 3 percent or greater, according to the California Energy Commission model) and signal a need for renewed energy conservation.
A New Western Time Zone
Q3. Mr. Benfield suggested merging the Pacific Time zone and the Mountain Time zone, creating a new zone called the Western time zone. The effect of this would be to put the states now in the Pacific Time zone, California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, on year-round daylight saving time, and double daylight saving time when they observed the daylight saving time schedule now observed. What is your opinion of this proposal?
A3. Merging the Pacific Time Zone and the Mountain Time Zone into a ''Western Time Zone'' has the advantage of administrative uniformity, but multiple disadvantages. Changing clock time results in changes in both the daily cycle of natural illumination and the daily cycle of thermal energy. Particularly in the western regions of a time zone, setting clock time ahead one hour in has the effect of forcing people to arise in the cold and in the dark. There is understandable opposition to a change in lifestyle induced by government regulation. There had better be a demonstrable and significant benefit to society, if people are to be inconvenienced by changes in clock time. So, in general, I would oppose a merger of Mountain and Pacific Time Zones.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Nevertheless, in an emergency, the temporary adoption of common clock time could be an advantage to the nation, and to the people in the time zone that will be most inconvenienced. If there were an electric capacity crisis in the winter of 2001–2002 in the Pacific energy region, including California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington states, the adoption of extended Daylight Saving Time would be likely to benefit the people of these states. This is because peak demand for electricity could be reduced by 2 to 4 percent if daylight saving time were in effect in the winter months.
Although New York State experienced transmission bottlenecks and loss of reserve margins in the summer of 2001, only the Pacific region is likely to be at risk of electric curtailments, if any, in the winter of 2001/2002. So a regional solution, through a regional time zone shift, could be of potential benefit.
There are likely to be significant scheduled repairs to the infrastructure that generates electricity for California consumers in the winter of 2001–2002. Beyond the scheduled repairs, unscheduled outages should be anticipated. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission investigated in year 2001 electric outages during the year 2000, the Commission staff found that most of the loss of service resulted from the deferred servicing of generating facilities of above-average age. Because California utilities deferred construction of new generating facilities in the 1990's, despite California Energy Commission projections of need in 1994 and 1996, the stock of plants now in service is far above the average age for generating capacity for the nation as a whole. A wintertime generating crisis is not a certainty, but it remains a genuine possibility.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is a below average reserve of water for hydroelectric generation in the Pacific Northwest, as of July 2001. The forecast of continuing drought through the Fall of 2001 by the National Weather Service, would suggest below-average hydroelectric availability through at least the Spring 2002 snowmelt. Below average hydroelectric availability may combine with deferred plant maintenance needs to cause a capacity gap in the Pacific states (and Nevada, most of which depends substantially upon California electric generation).
If there is a capacity crisis in the Winter of 2001–2002, it is likely to develop by December, a month with above average involuntary curtailments in California in both years 1999 and 2000. If a capacity crisis is likely to continue into the early months of year 2002, it would make sense for the U.S. Congress to adopt extended daylight saving time for the states of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington for the period January through April 2002.
Uniform adoption of a time change for the entire region would make the most sense. But a tradition of states' rights has allowed Arizona to opt out of summer daylight saving time. The Congress might enact legislation that allows each of the states in the Pacific Region, including California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, to adopt extended daylight saving time for a period with uniform beginning and uniform ending. Since consumers of all states would reduce their electric bills, by reducing peak demand, there would be an incentive for each state to agree to the change in clock time.
Reductions in electric peaks, through adoption of daylight saving time, would be likely to be in the range of 2 to 4 percent. And additional conservation might result from the daily reminder that electricity conservation and load shifting away from evening peaks were present necessities.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Were daylight saving time to begin in early January 2002, a program to fund school crossing guard services and schoolchildren pedestrian safety training should be put in effect in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, no later than December of 2001. Even though pedestrian accident-avoidance in afternoon light would be likely to more than offset accidents in the morning darkness, preparatory training could further reduce net pedestrian accidents and alleviate parental anxiety during school starts in morning darkness.
It is too early to know whether extended daylight saving time would be worthwhile for the Pacific coast states (ex-Alaska, plus Nevada) in the Winter of 2001–2002. The North American Electric Reliability Council, and the federal government, should project winter 2001/2002 generating capacity in time for the Congress to consider extending daylight saving time no later than January of 2002.
If the U.S. Department of Energy, via its National Laboratories (Livermore, Los Alamos, etc.), were to validate the projected peak electric demand savings suggested by the May 2001 California Energy Commission study for year-round DST, the U.S. Congress would be more adequately advised of the energy conservation benefits from extending daylight saving time in winter. It would make sense for the Department of Energy to review the State of California modeling effort at the start of the new fiscal year (October 1st), so information would be available to assist decision-makers in event of an electric capacity crisis in the Pacific & Pacific Northwest States this coming winter.
Alternative Daylight Savings Time Options
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q4. Can you suggest any other scheme for DST/DDST? For example, what about having the whole country on year-round daylight saving time, with the provision, that at federally mandated times of change, in the spring and the fall, states could change –1, 0, or 1, hour at the states' option.
A4. Daylight saving time has substantial benefits beyond energy conservation, if it is designed to encourage the start of daily activities in proximity to the time of sunrise. Except for emergency conditions, daylight saving time should not be extended so that it creates widespread inconvenience, as by forcing the start of daily activities well before the onset of natural illumination.
If a national energy policy is implemented, the existing system of separate Regional Independent System Operators may ultimately be replaced by a truly national electric grid. With improvements in inter-regional transmission of high voltage electricity, it should be possible to manage wintertime outages in any one region through bulk power exchanges from regions with excess wintertime capacity.
Summertime electric peaks can be managed by initiatives other than Double Daylight Saving Time, except perhaps in times of energy shortages. Over the long-term, the widespread adoption of time-of-day metering, smart appliance systems, peak-load pricing, co-generation, and generation of electricity from renewable resources should enable the nation to increase significantly the average capacity utilization of electric plants. With a more coherent national energy policy in place, the nation should not need to depend upon either wintertime daylight saving time or summertime Double Daylight Saving Time to achieve greater efficiency, cost-savings, and environmentally beneficial energy policies.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a crisis, extending daylight saving time, in winter, or in summer, could provide some leverage for wider adoption of the four-day work week as both a gasoline and electricity saving measure. In California virtually all of the monthly power peaks, and virtually all of the ''rolling blackout'' incidents occur on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays. If employers could be encouraged to adopt four-day work weeks, with at least one vacation day on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, significant spreading of peak electric loads would result. Extending the shoulder period for daylight saving time in the Spring and Fall might encourage employers to adopt four day work weeks, by providing employees who stay longer at work afternoon illumination as they return home from work, or through post-work outdoor recreation that limits use of home air conditioners. Tax credits, or day-of-week discounts for electric use, would encourage businesses to consider weekly work schedules that smooth out aggregate demand for electricity generation.
The hours of light in summer time are sufficient to encourage the 9 to 10-hour workday without need for Double Daylight Saving Time. However, if Double Daylight Saving Time were in effect in summer, the reduction in electric generating peaks could be increased if employers adopted four day work weeks, moved up work-start times, and scheduled one day off for a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. The California Energy Commission did not model the potential to expand energy savings by adopting energy conservation measures that are more attractive if Double Daylight Saving Time is in effect. Improved modeling of direct and indirect energy conservation impacts of Double Daylight Saving Time should precede any effort to adopt this measure through legislation.
Possible Daylight Savings Time Confusion
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q5. Congress acted to take control of the time change to eliminate confusion that existed when there were multitudes of local options. Do you think that it is possible to recreate the confusion that existed in this country on a worldwide basis?
Or, doesn't the time matter, as long as it is known what time is being used? For example, the military system uses letters to designate the time zones. [etc.]
A5. It is possible but unwise to recreate the confusion of multiple, inconsistent time zones, as existed before adoption of the Uniform Time Act of 1966. That is why I favor legislative proposals that set a uniform date of commencement and a uniform date of termination for any proposal to extend daylight saving time, or to adopt double daylight saving time.
Allowing states to opt out of daylight saving time is not my preference. If Arizona adopted daylight saving time along with the majority of the nation, there would be extra peak electric capacity that could be sold in interstate markets, serving important needs and making profits for Arizona utilities. I would favor a uniform start and end date for daylight saving time.
However, if only one region of the nation would benefit from a change in clock time, it does not appear equitable to compel the rest of the nation to adopt the same changes in clock time. So, if extended daylight saving time were needed in the period January-April 2002 for Pacific region states that may have electric capacity shortages that other regions do not share, it would be administratively feasible to allow these states to adopt wintertime daylight saving time. What is important is that the start and stop times be uniform, and that there be sufficient advance notice for common carriers to revise timetables to assure safety in operations and convenience for customers.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The California Energy Commission and Mr. Harris' Testimony
Q6. Please comment on the California Energy Commission study and Mr. Harris' written testimony.
A6. I commented on the California Energy Commission study of energy effects of daylight saving time in my prepared remarks of May 24, 2001. The California Energy Commission study was an innovative effort. Because it is the first study to attempt to model systematically the energy conservation effects of changes in clock time, this study should be:
1. Validated, by asking the California Energy Commission to publish a comparison of the peak demand projected by this model and the actual demand recorded by the California Independent System Operator in year 2001, for the shoulder period before and after daylight saving transitions in April and October, and to critique their own model; and
2. Extended by one of the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories (Livermore, Los Alamos, etc.) so as to include projections of energy conservation measures that are likely to be more widely implemented if there are extensions of daylight saving time. These include:
Adoption of four day work weeks, with at least one day off being the summer peak days Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday;
Adoption of post-work employer-sponsored recreational activities, with more afternoon light, to improve employee health and to separate residential and business electric peak demand;
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Adoption of thermostat-setbacks earlier in the day with Double Daylight Saving Time;
Adoption of afternoon/twilight scheduling for televised sporting events, that, with evening schedules, have caused coincident electric peaks;
Other conservation initiatives that may be aided by adoption of DDST;
Independent projection of reductions in peak demand through adoption of DST in winter, and adoption of indirect energy conservation measures benefiting from wintertime DST.
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
73325f.eps
73325g.eps
73325h.eps
73325i.eps
73325j.eps
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73325k.eps
73325l.eps
73325m.eps
73325n.eps
73325o.eps
73325p.eps
73325q.eps
73325r.eps
73325s.eps
73325t.eps
73325u.eps
73325v.eps
73325w.eps
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73325x.eps
73325y.eps
73325z.eps
73325aa.eps
73325bb.eps
73325cc.eps
73325dd.eps
73325ee.eps
73325ff.eps
73325gg.eps
73325hh.eps
73325ii.eps
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73325jj.eps
73325kk.eps
73325ll.eps
73325mm.eps
73325nn.eps
73325oo.eps
73325pp.eps
73325qq.eps
73325rr.eps
73325ss.eps
PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. HARRIS
Double Daylight Saving Time and Extended Daylight Saving Time: Uncertain Energy Conservation for the Nation or for States with ''Rolling Blackouts''
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Science:
In response to the request of the Subcommittee, I provide this written statement in lieu of my personal testimony on options to amend the Uniform Time Act for the purpose of alleviating electric capacity shortfalls between the summer of 2001 and the winter of 2002/2003.
My remarks have been substantially revised today, following release of a California Energy Commission Staff Report, Effects of Daylight Saving Time on California Electricity Use, Sacramento, California, May 23, 2001.(see footnote 1)
Background
Shortly after incandescent electric technology replaced natural gas as the preferred source of nighttime illumination, the Congress in 1918 adopted Daylight Saving Time (hereafter DST) as a war conservation measure. The Congress also adopted daylight saving time year-round for the entire United States in World War II, saving about one percent of energy demand. Concurrently, Great Britain adopted year-round daylight saving time, and double daylight saving time (''summer war time'' or DDST) to conserve coal in wartime. This measure reduced electric consumption and peak electric generation requirements.(see footnote 2)
In 1948, a drought in the Pacific Northwest reduced hydroelectric exports to northern California. As a result, California adopted year-round Daylight Saving Time as a successful electricity conservation initiative. This action, long before federal preemption via the Uniform Time Act of 1966, was then within the authority of the State of California.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I served as a research attorney within an Energy Policy research team at the BAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California in 1973–1975. When the OPEC oil embargo took effect in October 1973, we searched for prompt-implementation energy conservation initiatives. Four initiatives suitable for prompt implementation were: year-round daylight saving time, a reduced (55 mph) speed limit for highways, thermostat setbacks in buildings, and car pooling. Under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, states could opt out of daylight saving time in summer, but could not opt in to daylight saving time in winter. Neither California nor other interested states could adopt year-round daylight saving time without federal legislation since adoption of the Uniform Time Act.
My back-of-the-envelope research in 1973, utilizing temperature adjusted data from cooperating electric utilities, suggested about a one percent saving in fuels for electric production through adoption of year-round daylight saving time. Our objective was to reduce consumption of oil and natural gas. We paid little attention to the effects of year-round daylight saving time upon electric generating requirements, since generating capacity far exceeded demand under conditions of voluntary conservation. In January 1974 the Congress adopted year-round DST for 1974, and subsequent legislation extended the period of DST in 1975.
The U.S. Department of Transportation assessed the effects of year-round daylight saving time in 1975: there had been about a one half percent reduction in electricity consumption, a greater reduction in oil and natural gas consumption because of reduced peak electric loads, no increase in gasoline consumption despite extended afternoon daylight, increased use of mass transit, and reductions in automobile deaths and injuries, pedestrians deaths and injuries, and reduced crime.(see footnote 3)
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Contemporary Concerns
Two concerns intertwine to renew interest in prompt measures to reduce electricity demand in both the season of peak electric demand (summertime) and the time of day of peak electric consumption (proximate to sunset in winter, and late afternoon or early evening in summer):
In some regions of the U.S., electric generating capacity has not kept pace with growth in electric demand, resulting in involuntary curtailments (''rolling blackouts'') in winter 2000 and spring 2001 in California, and projections of ''rolling blackouts'' that may affect California, New York City, Long Island, and potentially other regions of the U.S. in the summer of 2001;(see footnote 4) and
Deregulation of wholesale electric prices during supply scarcities has resulted in substantial spikes in electricity prices when electric reserve margins are low.
The reason for current interest in utilizing changes in clock time as an emergency energy conservation measure is that clock time can be changed promptly, and uniformly across a state, or throughout the nation.
Double Daylight Saving Time & Extended Daylight Saving Time
Two potential changes in the Uniform Time Act are:
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Adoption of Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST), with clocks set two hours ahead of standard time, during summer or components of summer; and
Extension of Daylight Saving Time, with clocks set one hour ahead of standard time, on a year-round basis or during the winter season, such as from December through the first Sunday in April, when DST otherwise would take effect.
Implementation Options
If Double Daylight Saving Time, or Extended Daylight Saving Time could be shown to reliably and significantly reduce peak electric demand, there are four principal means of implementation that the Congress should consider:
(1) Amend the Uniform Time Act for the entire United States, to minimize the burden of time variations for common carriers and other businesses that operate in interstate commerce;(see footnote 5)
(2) Amend the Uniform Time Act to allow state-by-state choice, to opt into DDST in summer or DST in winter, but with uniform dates of commencement and termination; and
(3) Amend the Uniform Time Act to allow state-by-state choice to opt into DDST in summer or DST in winter, with each State legislature authorized to select its own commencement and termination dates; and
(4) Amend the Uniform Time Act to allow state-by-state choice to opt into DDST in summer or DST in winter, restricting the right to states in a contiguous region, such as California, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington.(see footnote 6)
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If the net benefits to the nation are demonstrable, Option 1 has the advantage of maximum implementation with minimum costs of implementation to common carriers and enterprises doing business in interstate commerce. So, if Double Daylight Saving Time would demonstrably and significantly reduce peak electric demand in adopting states, there would be good reason to implement Double Daylight Saving Time throughout the United States on a uniform basis. First, states subject to projected or likely ''rolling blackouts'' (California, and possibly New York City and Long Island) would avert service disruption costs, and possible risks to health and safety. Second, regional states would benefit from substantial reductions in costs of wholesale electricity in deregulated ''spot'' markets, as extra capacity would drive down ''spot'' market prices. Third, other states with excess capacity might reduce electric costs to their consumers by selling excess power to utilities with unacceptably narrow reserve margins at peak load prices.
If the net benefits to the nation are uncertain, Option 2 has the advantage of allowing states that project ''rolling blackouts'' to experiment with Double Daylight Saving Time, while minimizing cumulative departures from uniformity in time within time zones. This Option also has the advantage of not confining state eligibility to those known in advance to be at risk of ''rolling blackouts.'' In contrast, Option 4 would exclude at least one state (New York) that may be at risk of ''rolling blackouts'' or at least spikes in ''spot'' market prices, from adopting Double Daylight Saving Time.(see footnote 7)
The primary state that would benefit from prompt and sustained reduction of peak electric demand remains California. In February 2001 Governor Gray Davis set a target of an additional 5000 megawatts of capacity to be online by summer 2001. Four power plants with a total of 1,839 MW are expected to be on-line during June-July-August peaks. Together with 636 MW of peaker plant capacity, recently installed, about 2,575 of the desired 5,000 additional megawatts will be available, plus additional capacity due in September 2001.(see footnote 8)
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) completed a special assessment of Summer 2001 electric system reliability in California and the Pacific Northwest on May 15, 2001. This compares projections with March 2001 projections of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The NERC 2001 Summer Special Assessment projects lower peak demand in California in June, July, August, and September 2001 than does CAISO. NERC takes account of recent rate increases in reducing demand, supplemented by demand reduction measures other than Double Daylight Saving Time. But NERC questions CAISO's assumptions about full availability of recently constructed plants, and the duration of exports of hydroelectric power from drought-affected states in the Pacific Northwest.
Projecting both demand reductions through rate increases and demand mitigation measures such as interruptible load programs, NERC still projects ''rolling blackouts'' in California for nearly twice the duration projected by CAISO two months earlier. NERC projects, for average temperatures, 260 hours of ''rolling blackouts'' with an average outage of 2,160 megawatts (MW).(see footnote 9)
The benefits of prompt reduction in summertime electric demand, and especially in summertime peak demand, are substantial. Costs of involuntary load shedding are difficult to anticipate, but they include: traffic accidents at unserved traffic signals, losses in semiconductor products, software products, and other goods and services harmed by even temporary power disruptions, and potentially threats to health and safety of persons dependent upon electrically operated medical systems.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Shifting electric demand from periods of peak demand to off-peak periods can save multiples of average electric costs, particularly if wholesale providers can exercise market power by withholding power, ''laundering'' bulk sales through unregulated subsidiaries, or ''gaming'' prices under conditions of scarcity.(see footnote 10)
The economic benefits of peak demand reduction are substantial. But there is a major problem: there is not at present technical analysis that demonstrates reliably that Double Daylight Saving Time will significantly reduce peak power demand in California or other states.
Preliminary Comparison of Electric Peaks during Fall and Spring Transitions from and to Daylight Saving Time
In part to encourage analysis by others of temperature adjusted data of electric utilities, I obtained from the California Independent System Operator data on peak demand and time of daily peak for the last three years for which CAISO kept an historical database.(see footnote 11)
Comparing the three Fall transition mean peak demand for the seven days before and after the shift from DST to Standard Time indicated peaks in the DST period that ranged from 0.0% to 0.5% less than Standard Time peaks. The three Spring transitions, eight weeks closer to onset of summer than the Fall transitions, indicated average peak reductions of 1.2% (1999), 1.2% (2000), and 1.9% (2001). Despite my urging that the California Energy Commission adjust transition peaks for variations in temperature, that Commission's Staff Report of May 23, 2001 appears not to have done so. Hence, the data in Tables 1 and 2 that follow, without adjustment for temperature variations, are not statistically significant.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
California Energy Commission Staff Report, May 23, 2001
The CEC Staff Report, Effects of Daylight Saving Time on California Electricity Use, is not easily subject to independent validation or challenge. It has been available on the Internet for just a few hours at this writing. It asserts so minimal reductions in peak demand by adoption of Double Daylight Saving Time, about 0.5 percent or less of peak demand, as to raise doubts whether the uncertainties of the modeling effort swamp any potential ''saving'' in peak demand. If this is the best that contemporary modeling can yield, then there is no evidentiary basis upon which to burden the nation with adoption of Double Daylight Saving Time this summer.
One element of analysis that is conspicuously missing is the projection of energy conservation ''leverage'' from linked energy conservation initiatives that would benefit from availability of Double Daylight Saving Time.
Since about 29 percent of peak demand in California derives from air conditioning systems, there would appear to be substantial benefit from moving people into cool buildings earlier in the daily thermal cycle, and moving them out of overheated buildings earlier in the diurnal thermal cycle. In 1973–74, even with ''mandatory'' thermostat setbacks of air conditioning systems in office buildings, implementation was lessened in overheated buildings where people remained, many with inoperable window ventilation. If most building occupants leave an hour earlier in the diurnal heating cycle, there is greater opportunity to separate peak demand in workplaces from peak demand in residences. Many of the CAISO summer peaks still occur in the evenings. Separating workplace and residential peaks can help to reduce coincident peak demand. The California Energy Commission Staff Report did not address this issue.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Double Daylight Saving Time offers opportunities to reschedule night sporting events to late afternoon/twilight. This may be of some value, because sporting events on hot summer evenings often precipitate some of the greatest electric peaks of the entire year.
The California Energy Commission Staff Report did not address other workday conservation initiatives that might be leveraged through adoption of DDST. Might it be possible to rotate staffs into four day work weeks, with more late afternoon daylight, and eliminating a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday from the work schedule? Almost all of the summer power peaks in California occur on Mondays through Thursdays, so demand shifting into Friday could reduce power-generating peaks on the four worst days of the week.
Additional modeling would be useful. But at present, there is no modeling result that has been published that reliably demonstrates a significant reduction in peak electric demand by adoption of Double Daylight Saving Time.
The California Energy Commission Staff Report does suggest higher percentage reductions in daily peak demand through adoption of Wintertime DST. A peak demand reduction of 3.4%, or 1100 MW is suggested by the CEC Model.
The opportunity to adopt year-round Daylight Saving Time would be a possible benefit to the State of California, and possibly to Pacific Northwest states if improved precipitation does not alleviate hydroelectric shortages by Fall 2001. A 3.4% reduction in winter electric peaks could save a substantially higher percentage of electric costs, because of price ''spikes'' for a period of days around load curtailments in unregulated wholesale ''spot'' markets. So, the Congress may wish to keep a watchful eye on California's electric marketplace, to see if wintertime DST is needed while aging electric power plants go off-line for needed repairs.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conclusion, it can be demonstrated that changes in uniform time have prompt effects on energy consumption and on peak electric demand. But the magnitude of modeled reductions in peak electric demand do not as yet justify adoption of Double Daylight Saving Time this summer. This means that California and possibly other states are likely to incur ''rolling blackouts'' to an unprecedented extent this summer.
Until better modeling is in hand, federal and state officials need to concentrate efforts on other conservation measures, many altogether lacking in glamour or the allure of the ''quick fix.'' These include scheduling maintenance of existing air conditioners to maximize their performance, installing digital thermostats with automatic setback settings, and extending real-time meter installations.
Future modeling should incorporate the potential of Double Daylight Saving Time to ''leverage'' other energy conservation initiatives. Perhaps a better understanding of potential energy savings will be available in time to reconsider these issues for Summer 2002 energy decision-making.
73325tt.eps
73325uu.eps
73325vv.eps
73325ww.eps
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73325xx.eps
73325yy.eps
73325zz.eps
73325a3.eps
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Energy Conservation Potential of Extended
and Double Daylight Saving Time
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2001
10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
1. Purpose of the Hearing
This hearing will examine the potential energy savings that may result from extending the months during which Daylight Saving Time (DST) is in effect and from ''double daylight saving time'' (DDST)—advancing clocks by two hours in months with long periods of daylight. It will also address the societal effects of DST and DDST.
Testifying before the Subcommittee will be:
1. Representative Brad Sherman of California, who introduced H.R. 704 (Energy Time Adjustment Authorization Act) on February 14, 2001, to allow States in the Pacific time zone (California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) to temporarily adjust the standard time in response to the energy crisis. The provisions of Mr. Sherman's bill are included in H.R. 1647 (Electricity Emergency Relief Act), which was introduced by Representative Joe Barton on May 1, 2001. On May 11, 2001, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality reported H.R. 1647 (Amended) to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
2. A panel including: Ms. Linda Lawson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; and Mr. James C. Benfield, Bracy Williams & Co.
Two witnesses that could not attend the hearing will also submit testimony for the record:
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. California Energy Commission. The Commission is completing a study on California's energy situation, including consideration of adjustments to DST. The Commission chair, William Keese, testified before the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee on May 3, 2001 that the Commission believed DDST ''would be helpful in saving anywhere from 400 to 1600 megawatts on daily peak electricity demand depending on the time of year and weather conditions.''
2. Mr. William R. Harris, attorney. Consultant on energy and DST, who testified before Congress in 1973 during an energy crisis when consideration was given to year-round DST.
2.0 Overview
DST was originally legislated as a wartime and crisis period energy-saving measure. It remains in effect as a public preference. The design of our electric power system is such that even a small reduction in electric power demand can make the difference between normal operation and voltage reductions (''brownouts''), or disconnections (''blackouts''). DST affects many people positively, and some negatively. Congress has extensively debated the effects of DST on people's lives in the past. As early as 1948, bills to federally mandate permanent DST were introduced. The Uniform Time Act (P.L. 89–387) was enacted in 1966, and has since been amended twice.
DST is in effect in most areas of U.S. for seven months (30 weeks)—from the first Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October.(see footnote 12) There is no local option to observe DST within a State, as there was prior to the Uniform Time Act. A State may choose to remain on standard time, with the clocks not advanced, but the entire State must observe this time. For States with parts in two time zones, the parts may observe different times, but the same time must be observed through the entire part. The earlier six-month DST period was centered around the warmest period on the year. A proposed eight-month DST period was centered on the longest day of the year.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DST in wartime, during other crisis periods, and extended DST in the 1973 to 1975 energy crisis, was hoped to have the additional benefit of keeping everyone continually aware of the need to conserve energy of all types.
Points in the earlier debates were:
1. The establishment of time zones with uniform time, and adjusting boundaries;
2. DST as an energy saving measure to reduce or shift peak demand, or to decrease energy use overall; and
3. The effect on citizens lives of the changed hours of daylight.
This hearing will consider the energy conservation potential of extended DST and DDST, nationwide; and the effects on citizens' lives. At this time, HR 1647 (the Electricity Emergency Relief Act) is proposing to change the law regulating time by allowing the States of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington to adjust standard time, on a State-wide basis, as necessary to alleviate an electricity crisis.
2.1 History
2.1.1 Through World War I
Before 1883 there were 100 or more local time zones in the U.S. based on local sun time. In that year the railroads set up four time zones in the U.S. In 1884 an International convention established the 24 world time zones that exist now.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During World War I, Europe adopted DST as an energy saving measure and the U.S. Congress adopted DST for 1918 and 1919. After the war ended in 1918, there was a deluge of protests asking Congress to end DST, and Congress abolished DST, overriding President Wilson's veto.
The 1918 Act gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) authority to set and adjust the boundaries of the time zones. There have been many adjustments to zone boundaries since then to accommodate local needs.
The time in zones is chosen so that when the sun is at its highest point over the center of the zone, it is noon throughout the zone. Having one time across zones creates a DST effect in the western part of the zones, later sunrises and sunsets.
2.1.2 WWI through WWII
From 1919 to 1942, implementing DST was a local or State option. Most of the eastern States used DST. In the summer of 1941, Mississippi and North Carolina and parts of three other southern States went on DST to combat a power shortage caused by a drought.
At the beginning of World War II, Congress passed an Act that advanced time one hour throughout the country year round as a measure to trim evening electric load peaks, which were threatening to exceed the power available for civilian use. There was no name for this advanced time, but President Roosevelt suggested that it be called ''War Time.'' It lasted until the last Sunday in September 1945.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2.1.3 1945 through 1966
From October 1945 to 1966, DST was again a local or State option. Beginning in 1948, bills were introduced to establish national DST. This was accomplished when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (Public Law 89–387).
As enacted in 1966, the Uniform Time Act required all States to follow the same schedule for DST, and provided for advancing clocks one hour from the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. It also provided for any State to not observe the advanced time, based on State law, but only on a State-wide basis.
2.1.4 1967 through 1972
When the Department of Transportation (DOT) was created in 1967, the ICC's DST responsibilities were transferred to it. In 1972, the Uniform Time Act was amended (Public Law 92–267) to allow States that are in two time zones to apply the option to observe DST or not, to the entire part of the State in each time zone.
2.1.5 1973 through 1975, an Energy Crisis
During the 1973 oil embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) that triggered an energy crisis in the U.S., Congress enacted a trial period of year-round DST (Public Law 93–182, the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act), beginning January 6, 1974, and ending April 27, 1975. The Act also required two reports to Congress on the effects of year round DST—an interim report in 1974, and a final report in 1975. The Act was amended in October 1974 by Public Law 93–434 (based on the DOT interim report of June 1974, and public concern about wintertime safety) to return to standard time for the period beginning October 27, 1974, and ending February 23, 1975, when DST resumed. The 1973 Act expired on the last Sunday of April 1975, and DST continued under the Uniform Time Act. DOT issued a final report in September 1975 detailing the effects of DST under the 1973 Act. Electric energy savings were about 1 percent.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2.1.6 1975 to present
Bills were introduced to extend DST in the 94th, 97th, and 98th Congresses but none of the introduced legislation was passed to become law.
In 1986 the law was amended (P.L. 99–359) to extend DST to the presently observed period (first Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October).
2.2 Double Daylight Saving Time (DDST)
DDST would advance the clocks by two hours in summer months, supposedly achieving more energy savings. During WWII, Great Britain used DDST and experienced more energy savings than with DST.
2.3 Documented Energy Savings
The 1975 DOT report found that DST achieved a 1 percent electric power savings. However, in a 1976 review of the 1975 DOT report, National Bureau of Standards (NBS) analysts disagreed with the DOT analysts, saying that the reported savings could not be proven. No other definitive studies have been completed, with the exception of the California Energy Commission analysis noted earlier that found that DDST ''would be helpful in saving anywhere from 400 to 1600 megawatts on daily peak electricity demand depending on the time of year and weather conditions.''
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An informal survey with three electric power systems, in which the dispatchers were to be questioned, found that DST has no significant effect on utility operations. This check was made on the premise that dispatchers deal with the real loads that exist and are going to exist, minute by minute. Dispatchers must know what loads to anticipate and therefore track the actual loads.
2.4 Notes on Savings
History shows that the U.S. government believed that DST resulted in energy savings based on experiences during World Wars I and II.
Past DST savings provide little guidance on what energy savings might be now. Savings from extending DST and from double DST are estimated to be small but significant. The savings can only be estimated because electric power use is now much greater than in the past, and the pattern of use is different. In addition, the savings arise from people's voluntary behavior, which can be greatly influenced by their perception of what they ought to do.
The changed load pattern may account for the 1 percent savings in 1974 and 1975.
2.5 Operation of the ''Grid''
The design and operation of the electric power generation and distribution system (the grid) is such that there is no storage of power. In contrast, a car's electrical system has a battery to supply power when the engine driven alternator has stopped. On the grid, the only source of additional power is unused capacity in generators that are running, or from additional generators that are started. Electric power use varies considerably. Peaks of demand occur daily, seasonally, and yearly. If generation capacity is exceeded the dispatchers will have to reduce voltage (a ''brownout''), disconnect some load by remote control (certain kinds of factories, businesses, schools and homes that have agreed to this and are connected for it) or disconnect whole groups of customers by area (a ''rolling blackout''). During a rolling blackout, one area at a time is shut down for a period, then another area is shut down and electricity is restored to the first area. With this system design, a small difference in load, even 1 percent, can make the difference between a brownout/rolling blackout and normal operation.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2.6 Public Perception and Public Acceptance
When DST was a wartime energy conservation measure, the public wanted to return to standard time as soon as the wars ended. This desire may have had more to do with a dislike of wars, and war measures, since States went back to observing DST soon after Congress repealed it nationally. Most States continued to observe DST for many years as a conservation measure and life-style enhancement.
The 1973 Act detailed the hope that the extended DST would have the effect of maintaining public awareness of the continuous need for conserving energy of all kinds.
After the 1973 Act there was a public perception that extended DST resulted in accidents involving school children on dark winter mornings. This perception was traced by DOT to a newspaper story about one tragic accident involving the deaths of children in an early morning accident. The actual cause of the accident was local early morning fog, due to unusual weather conditions at the time. The 1976 NBS review did find a statistically significant evidence of increased fatalities among school-age children in the mornings during the test period, although it said it was impossible to determine if this was due to DST.
A public opinion poll conducted for the 1975 DOT report showed a majority of the public in favor of DST for six or seven months. A majority disapproved of DST for eight months.
2.7 Crime
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The DOT 1975 study found a 10 to 13 percent decrease in crime in the Washington, DC area. The decrease was attributed to the increase in evening hours with light.
2.8 School Hours
During the 1974 to 1975 period with extended DST, a few school districts changed their school hours.
2.9 Traffic Accidents
With extended DST, there are more days when it is dark during the morning commute, and light for the evening commute. The 1975 DOT report documented a slight (0.7 to 1.0 percent) net decrease in fatal accidents due to DST. The 1976 NBS review found no significant differences in traffic fatalities. A 1993 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study of the data for the four years 1987 through 1991 documented that 900 fewer fatal crashes would have occurred if DST had been in effect year round for these four years. In both studies, the cause of the net decrease in fatalities is the availability of more light in the evening.
2.10 AM Daytime Radio Broadcasting
Daytime AM stations are licensed for daylight hours to prevent signal interference with other stations. (The ionosphere changes altitude, day to night, so the AM waves that bounce off it travel further at night. This will cause interference with other radio signals, unless the station shuts down or limits its transmitting power.) The DST law allows the Federal Communications Commission to adjust licenses so stations can still broadcast in dark morning hours, and not lose morning commute advertising revenue.
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2.11 Other Groups Affected
The Senate and House hearings for the 1986 law had a full range of witnesses. Witnesses supporting the extension of DST included:
the Daylight Saving Time Coalition, representing 11 trade organizations, with 8,309 company members and $138 billion in 1984 sales; and
the RP Foundation Fighting Blindness (RP-retinitis pigmentosa (night blindness) ).
Witnesses opposing the extension of DST included:
the Farm Bureau, who recommended DST from Memorial Day to Labor Day;
the Air Transport Association, which was in favor of all States observing DST, and eliminating the option to not observe it. Their intent was to simplify scheduling; and
the Northwest Rail Improvement Committee who was in favor of year-round DST, to eliminate the nuisance of changing clocks.
3.0 Issues
1. Should the duration of DST be extended from the present seven months per year?
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
2. Should any provisions of the current law or implementing regulations be changed? Should changes be nationwide?
3. What DST schedule should be followed?
a. No DST?
b. The present seven month DST?
c. Year-round DST?
d. Year-round DST with double DST in summer months?
e. Standard time, DST, and double DST?
4. Are there any additional groups that will be adversely affected by extended DST or double DST?
4.0 References
1. Standard Time in the United States, A History of Standard and Daylight Saving Time in the United States and an Analysis of Related Laws. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1970.
2. The Year Round Daylight Saving Time Study, Volume I. Interim Report on the Operation and Effects of Year-Round Daylight Saving Time. A Report to Congress from the Secretary of Transportation, June 1974.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Daylight Saving Time—Background and Legislative Analysis (Revised) CE 73 74–207 SP, Congressional Research Service, Mauree W. Ayton, Analyst, Science Policy Research Division. December 31, 1974.
4. The Daylight Saving Time Study, Volume I. Final Report on the Operation and Effects of Daylight Saving Time. Volume II. Supporting Studies: Final Report on the Operation and Effects of Daylight Saving Time. A Report to Congress from the Secretary of Transportation, September 1975.
5. U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Review and Technical Evaluation of the DOT Daylight Saving Time Study. Prepared for the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1976.
6. Record of the Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 1935 and H.R. 2095, ''Daylight Saving Time'' April 24, 1985.
7. Record of the Hearing before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session, on S. 240, and S. 1433, ''Daylight Savings (sic) Extension Act of 1985'' October 31, 1985.
8. Daylight Saving Time and Motor Vehicle Crashes: The Reduction in Pedestrian and Vehicle Occupant Fatalities; S.A. Ferguson et al., American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, No. 1, January 1995.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
9. Daylight Saving Time, Congressional Research Service Report 98–99 C, Heidi G. Yacker, Analyst, Information Research Division. August 1, 2000. [See http://www.congress.gov/erp/rs/pdf/98–99.pdf]
10. Letter, Hon. Gray Davis, Governor, State of California, from William R. Harris, Attorney at Law, 16641 Marquez Terrace, Pacific Palisades, CA, 90272, March 20, 2001.
11. Testimony of The Honorable William Keese, Chairman, California Energy Commission, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Hearing on H.R. 1647, ''The Electricity Emergency Act of 2001.'' [See http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/05032001Hearing204/Keese288print.htm.]
73325b3.eps
73325c3.eps
73325d3.eps
73325e3.eps
73325f3.eps
73325g3.eps
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73325h3.eps
73325i3.eps
73325j3.eps
73325k3.eps
73325l3.eps
73325m3.eps
73325n3.eps
73325o3.eps
73325p3.eps
73325q3.eps
73325r3.eps
73325s3.eps
73325t3.eps
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73325u3.eps
73325v3.eps
73325w3.eps
73325x3.eps
73325y3.eps
73325z3.eps
73325a4.eps
73325b4.eps
73325c4.eps
73325d4.eps
73325e4.eps
73325f4.eps
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73325g4.eps
73325h4.eps
(Footnote 1 return)
This Staff Report by Adrienne Kandel and Daryl Metz, CEC Report 400–01–013, has been transmitted by the California Energy Commission to the House Committee on Science on May 23, 2001.
(Footnote 2 return)
An internet search of the British Library records did not identify a report that addresses relationships between the reduction of cumulative electric demand and the reduction of peak electric generation requirements.
(Footnote 3 return)
See U.S. Department of Transportation, The Daylight Saving Time Study: A Report to Congress from the Secretary of Transportation, Washington, D.C.: DOT, 1975, 2 vols. A February 1974 headline in the Miami Herald noted a fourfold increase in January 1974 deaths of Florida school children en route to school, compared to January 1973. This caused nationwide parental anxiety. In January 1973, fatalities among Florida school children were: 2 in the morning, 14 in the afternoon. In January 1974, fatalities among Florida school children were: 8 in the morning, 8 in the afternoon, the same total as in the prior year. The 1975 DOT study showed a net reduction in schoolchildren fatalities and injuries nationwide during implementation of year-round Daylight Saving Time.
(Footnote 4 return)
North American Electric Reliability Council, 2001 Summer Assessment: Reliability of the Bulk Electricity Supply in North America, May 15, 2001, and North American Electric Reliability Council, 2001 Summer Special Assessment (California and the Pacific Northwest), May 15, 2001.
(Footnote 5 return)
This is the traditional model for federal legislation affecting time since the Uniform Time Act of 1966. It simplifies timetable planning for common carriers and maximizes uniformity within time zones.
(Footnote 6 return)
H.R. 704 (107th Congress), the Energy Time Adjustment Authorization Act, and H.R. 1647 (107th Congress), the Electricity Emergency Relief Act, Title II, Sec. 204, Daylight Savings Time, propose a restrictive right to alter uniform time in four states: California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
(Footnote 7 return)
The North American Electric Reliability Council in its May 15, 2001 Report, 2001 Summer Assessment, notes transmission congestion for delivery of bulk power to New York City and Long Island, even if overall New York State reserve margins are adequate. See also DOE's Energy Information Administration fact sheet, ''New York City's Summer 2001 Electricity Situation,'' May 9, 2001. Even if New York City averts ''rolling blackouts'' in Summer 2001, reduced reserve margins are associated with significant spikes in ''spot'' market prices. See David B. Patton, ''Annual Assessment of the New York Electric Market, 2000,'' Report to the New York Independent System Operator, April 17, 2001.
(Footnote 8 return)
See California Energy Commission, ''Update on Energy Commission's Review of California Power Projects,'' May 21, 2001.
(Footnote 9 return)
2001 Summer Special Assessment, Table 4, ''Expected Hours of Unserved Energy—NERC Estimates,'' May 15, 2001, p. 13.
(Footnote 10 return)
See for example, Anjali Sheffrin, Director of Market Analysis, California Independent System Operator, ''Empirical Evidence of Strategic Bidding in California ISO Real Time Market,'' CAISO, March 21, 2001. See also Sam Stanton, ''Special Report: How Californians Got Burned—The state electricity system is in shambles, and the worst may be ahead. How did things get to this point?'' The Sacramento Bee, May 6, 2001.
(Footnote 11 return)
See Appendix 1, Tables 1 and 2.
(Footnote 12 return)
Currently, the following do not observe DST: Arizona, Hawaii, the part of Indiana in the eastern time zone, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.