Daylight Time vs. Standard Time


Super Anarchist
Let's go back to "local apparent noon" since sailors should be able to figure that out.
I have a friend who rants and raves twice a year that we should be using local noon everywhere. His argument is that modern smart phones would make the inevitiable confusion with scheduling across different regions a non issue. His idea is stupid, but we have fun telling each other we're wrong.

The only time I would care about local noon is if I were using celestial navigation to determine my position. Otherwise, time as we use it is an artificial construct and we need it only to know when to show up for our video meetings. 


Bull City

A fine fellow
North Carolina
This is from The Washington Post and I think it's worth reading.

Sleep experts say Senate has it wrong: Standard time, not daylight saving, should be permanent

By Allyson Chiu

March 16, 2022

Sleep experts widely agree with the Senate that the country should abandon its twice-yearly seasonal time changes. But they disagree on one key point: which time system should be permanent. Unlike the Senate, many sleep experts believe the country should adopt year-round standard time.

After the Senate voted unanimously and with little discussion Tuesday to make daylight saving time permanent, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine issued a statement cautioning that the move overlooks potential health risks associated with that time system. (The legislation, which would take effect next year, must get through the House and be signed by President Biden to become law.)

“We do applaud stopping the switching during the course of the year and settling on a permanent time,” said Jocelyn Cheng, a member of the AASM’s public safety committee. But, she added, “standard time, for so many scientific and circadian rationales and public health safety reasons, should really be what the permanent time is set to.”

The AASM made this stance clear in 2020 when it released a position statement recommending that the country institute year-round standard time. Its reasoning, in part, is that standard time is more closely associated with humans’ intrinsic circadian rhythm, and that disrupting that rhythm, as happens with daylight saving time, has been associated with increased risks of obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease and depression.

Although some experts have called for more research before deciding on a permanent time while others questioned the push for year-round standard time, the AASM statement received backing from more than a dozen other organizations, including the National Safety Council and the National Parent Teacher Association.

Tuesday’s vote comes amid a growing nationwide push for permanent daylight saving time. Though critics have cast doubt on the purported energy-saving benefits, advocates argue that it promotes public safety, with evidence linking the extra daylight in the evenings to a decrease in crime.

“The Senate has finally delivered on something Americans all over the country want: to never have to change their clocks again,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who spoke on the Senate floor after the vote. Murray co-authored the bipartisan bill with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and others.

“No more dark afternoons in the winter,” Murray said. “No more losing an hour of sleep every spring. We want more sunshine during our most productive waking hours.”

But many sleep experts say that those in favor of more light in the late afternoons and evenings may not be considering the costs.

“We have all enjoyed those summer evenings with seemingly endless dusks,” said David Neubauer, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University. But daylight saving time “does not ‘save’ evening light at all, it simply steals it from the morning when it is necessary to maintain our healthy biological rhythms.”

Although the AASM noted that chronic effects of permanent daylight saving time have not been well studied, it highlighted some research that found “the body clock does not adjust to DST even after several months,” which could result in a permanent discrepancy between the environmental clock and the body clock.

“The circadian clock, it’s not just something that involves the cells of your brain,” Cheng said. “The circadian clock also regulates rhythms in other areas of the body — like cells of the heart, like cells of the liver — and by altering our natural circadian rhythm in this way, we’re throwing off that biological rhythm, and that’s a longer term effect.”

While no time system will be perfect for everyone, making daylight saving time permanent would lead to a greater number of dark mornings than we have now, said Phyllis Zee, chief of sleep medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.

“With daylight saving time, we are perpetually out of synchronization with our internal clocks and we often achieve less nighttime sleep, both circumstances having negative health impacts,” Neubauer said. “Extra evening light suppresses the melatonin that should be preparing us for falling asleep. The later dawn during daylight saving time deprives our biological clocks of the critical light signal.”

Experts say circadian misalignment has been associated with adverse effects on cognition and mood as well as cardiovascular and metabolic function. “It’s really not a good thing to have your internal body clocks out of sync,” Zee said. “Imagine being in jet lag a lot of the time; it can’t be good for you.”

The current enthusiasm for permanent daylight saving time is “grossly misguided,” said Neubauer, who predicted a return to “the extremely unpopular 1970s dark winter mornings with commuters going to work and children going to school long before sunrise, inevitably leading to injuries and fatalities.”

Zee said her “heart sank” when she saw the news of the Senate vote. “I thought there would be more of a discussion, that it wouldn’t be as unanimous.” Of the three potential time systems for the country to be on — permanent standard, biannual switching and permanent daylight saving time — she said, the last is “probably the worst choice.”

The AASM noted in its statement Tuesday that the pros and cons of daylight saving time and standard time were discussed in detail during a hearing held by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on March 9. “Unfortunately, [Tuesday’s] quick action by the Senate allowed for neither a robust discussion nor a debate,” the statement said. “We call on the House to take more time to assess the potential ramifications of establishing permanent daylight saving time before making such an important decision that will affect all Americans.”

“Everybody advocates a permanent time, but this difference between one hour back or one hour forward is not so clear in everybody’s mind,” Cheng said. “I would like to see further debate and some due diligence done on these health consequences and public safety measures before anything else goes forward.”


Bull City

A fine fellow
North Carolina
More from The Washington Post:

How to argue about whether to make daylight saving time permanent

This week, the Senate rather suddenly passed a bill to make “spring forward” time on the clocks permanent (the kind of time we’re on right now). That means it would be lighter longer in the afternoon during winter but much darker in the mornings. We don’t know whether the House will pass it or whether Biden would sign it into law. But the debate is on. Here’s how to argue about it:

The case for permanent daylight saving

More sunshine when you can enjoy it: Testifying before the House last week, University of Washington law professor Steve Calandrillo summed it up like this: “Human nature is we want to live our lives in the afternoons, in the evenings. We stay up late. We want to go out.”

Economic boost: Businesses would be open during more daylight hours.

Safety: Some experts say extended daylight hours make nighttime driving safer and protect pedestrians.

The case against permanent daylight saving

Darker mornings: The debate here really hinges on whether you prefer your daylight in the morning or the evening. With daylight saving, dark mornings mean children will have to wait in the dark for school buses, which some advocates say is a safety hazard. In D.C., permanent daylight saving time would mean the sun wouldn’t rise before 8 a.m. for more than a fifth of the year, our Capital Weather Gang explains.

Sleep experts want the “fall back” time to be standard: Daylight saving time “does not ‘save’ evening light at all,” said David Neubauer, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University. “It simply steals it from the morning when it is necessary to maintain our healthy biological rhythms.”

We already tried this: In 1973, President Richard Nixon proposed temporarily making daylight saving time permanent. “And people liked it! Nearly three-quarters of Americans supported it, according to multiple polls,” my colleague Aaron Blake explains.

But then it went into effect, and they hated it.

ATT Tree Huggin, Global Warming, Solar Panel Activists

People Use the MOST Energy After Work/Skool

People w Solar only make electricity WHEN THE FUCKIN SUN IS OUT

People w solar pay Peak Hour Rates that eat electricity @ Whey more than what they made during the SunLit hours

Making Peak Hours fit in While the Sun is Out is The Best Bang for the Buck

I get outta bed when it's Nice Out !!!!!

FUCK All Ya FUCKS !!!!!!!!!

WATCH RELATED: CPUC says it has received 263 calls and 65 complaints from SDG&E customers since January 1 (March 2022)

San Diego County Taxpayers Association supports 'sunshine tax' on solar

Debate heats up over California’s proposed rooftop solar tariff: NEM 3.0


Author: David Gotfredson (Investigative Producer)
Published: 9:28 PM PST March 3, 2022
Updated: 9:28 PM PST March 3, 2022

SAN DIEGO — The San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA) came out in support Wednesday of a new tariff on rooftop solar.
The solar industry calls it a sunshine tax.
The tariff could mean a charge of $48 per month for the average solar customer in San Diego, in addition to other proposed charges.
“We’re opposed to taxing consumers for generating their own energy from the sun,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, the executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association.


“It’s unfair. It moves California in the wrong direction.  And it absolutely will destroy the rooftop solar market in California,” said Del Chiaro.
The solar tariff is supported by the State's big-three utilities, that argue solar customers do not pay their fair share to maintain a clean, reliable grid.
"Billion of dollars of money are saved by generating electricity in our communities and avoiding having to pay San Diego Gas and Electric money to build transmission lines to bring those electrons in from far away," said Del Chiaro.
Under the so-called NEM 3.0 proposal, residential solar owners in San Diego would pay an average monthly tariff of $48, as well as a higher rate for time-of-use power amounting to $16 per month, Del Chiaro said, and receive a greatly reduced rate when selling extra power back to the grid.
“San Diego Gas and Electric and the other utilities are acting out of an anti-competitive spirit, trying to scapegoat solar users, and blaming solar users – of all people – for their ballooning and out-of-control spending of ratepayer dollars,” said Del Chiaro.
The San Diego County Taxpayers Association, on the other hand, supported NEM 3.0 saying the current rate structure favors rooftop solar customers over low income customers, who cannot afford solar.
"Twenty cents on every dollar of a non-solar customer's bill goes to subsidize the stuff that solar customers aren't paying for," said Haney Hong, the group’s CEO.
The proposed tariff also would support a $600 million clean energy fund and support battery storage programs for low income customers.
“It’s not going to kill the solar industry,” said Hong. “This is not an issue of no solar at all.  It's an issue of where can we correct the marketplace so that we continue to incentivize those other things and other technologies that will help us get to decarbonizing the grid.”


SDG&E’s parent company, Sempra, supports the San Diego County Taxpayers Association financially by contributing tens of thousands of dollars annually in membership dues and other payments, records showed.
“San Diego Gas and Electric is a member of the Taxpayers Association, as are other San Diego companies, as are many households,” said Hong. “Did they influence this discussion or process?  Absolutely not.”
Currently, the proposed NEM 3.0 tariff has been put on hold indefinitely at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Last month, Governor Gavin Newsom said there was “more work to be done” on NEM 3.0 before it goes to a final vote at the CPUC.

Related Articles

WATCH RELATED: Sempra's California utilities predict $21.2 billion in capital projects by 2026 (Feb. 2022).

Last edited by a moderator:

Bull City

A fine fellow
North Carolina
Don’t worry,  someone in the house will fuck it up by adding some useless rider that the senate would never agree too to.
Sorry for being pedantic, but let's try a little harder.

I hope the House will be more circumspect on this than the Senate. This bill sat around for years, and the Senate passed it with no debate or public comment. Ridiculous.



Super Anarchist
De Nile
I'm one of those odd ducks that likes getting up when it's dark, and I need that evening light to stay awake past 10... So I don't mind. But the 3 ladies in my house will hate it in the winter.



Super Anarchist
Washington DC
Sorry for being pedantic, but let's try a little harder.

I hope the House will be more circumspect on this than the Senate. This bill sat around for years, and the Senate passed it with no debate or public comment. Ridiculous.
Sorry for the spelling error, or what is grammatical?  Tough call, I'll try to do better in the future. 

They've got a committee looking into it, so circumspect it is.

"The proposal will now go to the House, where the Energy and Commerce Committee had a hearing to discuss possible legislation last week.

Pallone, the chairman of the committee, agreed in his opening statement at the hearing that it is “time we stop changing our clocks.” But he said he was undecided about whether daylight saving time or standard time is the way to go."

I am an early riser (4-5am, 6 if I decide to sleep in),  so the time shift doesn't really bother me one way or the other.   Except when I'm up an about,  no one else in the house is, so no noisy projects.  I will enjoy being able to do yard work after regular working hours for an extra hour or so,  rather than wasting those hours on the weekend.


Latest posts