Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Sunshine Protection Act

The Sunshine Protection Act refers to a series of bills introduced in the U.S. since 2018 to establish permanent (DST) nationwide, thereby eliminating the biannual transitions between standard time and DST mandated by the of 1966. Under the proposed legislation, DST would become the year-round standard, with exemptions allowed only for states or territories already opting out of DST, such as and most of . The act's primary stated aims include reducing disruptions from clock changes and extending evening daylight for economic and recreational benefits, though empirical analyses have questioned the net advantages. Introduced initially as S.3471 in the 115th , the bill gained traction amid public frustration with time shifts, passing the Senate unanimously via in 2022 as S.623 in the 117th , but it stalled in the and was not enacted. Subsequent reintroductions, including H.R.1279 in the 118th and both S.29 and H.R.139 in the 119th starting January 2025, have similarly advanced little beyond committee referral, reflecting partisan divides and competing proposals for permanent instead. As of October 2025, no version has become , leaving the U.S. to observe DST from the second in to the first in annually. The proposal has sparked debate grounded in circadian biology and health data, with proponents citing potential reductions in seasonal adjustment disruptions—such as the observed spikes in myocardial infarctions, strokes, and traffic fatalities following the spring DST onset. However, opposition from organizations like the emphasizes that permanent DST would exacerbate chronic misalignment between clock time and solar noon, leading to darker winter mornings that increase risks for schoolchildren commuting and evening chronotypes, while empirical evidence favors permanent for aligning with human physiology and minimizing overall morbidity. Studies indicate no reliable savings from DST and possible increases in use, undermining historical justifications for the policy.

Historical Context

Origins of Daylight Saving Time in the United States

Daylight saving time (DST) in the United States originated as a wartime measure during to conserve energy resources. Although satirical suggestions for shifting clocks appeared as early as Benjamin Franklin's 1784 essay proposing Parisians rise earlier to utilize morning daylight, serious advocacy began in the early . In 1907, British builder proposed advancing clocks seasonally to extend evening daylight for recreation, influencing later ideas, but U.S. adoption was driven by exigencies of war rather than leisure. Germany implemented DST on April 30, 1916, to reduce artificial lighting needs and save coal for the war effort, prompting Allied nations to consider similar steps. In the U.S., amid fuel shortages and mobilization for , Senator William P. Calder of introduced legislation to establish standard time zones and DST. The resulting , also known as the Calder Act, was signed into law by President on March 19, 1918, formalizing five time zones and mandating a one-hour clock advancement during summer months. DST took effect nationwide on March 31, 1918, at 2:00 a.m., with clocks turned forward one hour until October 27, 1918, extending the period to seven months in its inaugural year. The policy aimed to align daylight with peak activity hours, purportedly saving fuel equivalent to illuminating major cities, though contemporary debates highlighted opposition from agricultural interests concerned about disrupted routines and schedules. Compliance was enforced federally, marking the first uniform national observance, but public and sectoral resistance led to its repeal by on August 20, 1919, shortly after the war's end.

Evolution and Empirical Critiques of DST Practices

Daylight saving time (DST) in the United States originated as a wartime measure under the of March 19, 1918, which established DST from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October to conserve energy during . The policy was repealed in 1919 amid opposition from agricultural and business interests, resulting in fragmented local implementations and over 400 variations in time observance by the early 1960s. During , the federal government mandated year-round DST from February 9, 1942, to September 30, 1945, under the War Time Act to support war production efficiency. Postwar inconsistencies prompted the Uniform Time Act of 1966, which standardized DST nationwide from the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October, while allowing states to opt out entirely if uniform across the state. The 1973–1974 Arab oil embargo led to a year-round DST experiment from January 6, 1974, to October 27, 1975, under the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act, but public backlash over darker winter mornings—linked to increased risks for schoolchildren—ended the trial early. Subsequent extensions occurred, including a 1986 law shifting DST to the first Sunday in April, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, effective 2007, expanding it to the second Sunday in March through the first Sunday in November to purportedly enhance energy savings and align with school and work schedules. Empirical analyses of DST's energy conservation rationale, originally tied to reduced evening lighting needs, have consistently found negligible or null overall effects. A review of multiple U.S. studies concluded that none demonstrated statistically significant energy savings different from zero, with some simulations indicating slight increases due to heightened use outweighing lighting reductions. Clock transitions disrupt circadian rhythms, with the spring shift to DST associated with acute risks, including a 24% increase in incidence in the following week and elevated stroke rates, as evidenced by population-level data from multiple countries. Chronic misalignment under DST exacerbates , worsening outcomes like and anxiety, particularly in adolescents whose biological clocks delay naturally. Safety critiques reveal mixed but predominantly negative transition effects. The spring DST onset correlates with approximately 30 additional annual U.S. fatal vehicle crashes from 2002–2011, attributable to sleep loss impairing reaction times and awareness, imposing a exceeding $275 million yearly. While permanent DST might reduce evening rush-hour accidents via extended daylight, transition-induced spikes in crashes and poorer driving metrics—such as increased risk-taking—persist, with the advocating permanent standard time to minimize these harms. On crime, DST's evening light extension has been linked to reductions in robberies and violent offenses, with one analysis estimating significant social benefits from decreased criminal activity outweighing costs in some models. Productivity and economic impacts further question DST's net value. Sleep disruption from transitions leads to measurable declines in workplace performance and cognitive function, contributing to higher healthcare costs and lost output estimated in billions annually. Although proponents cite leisure and retail benefits from later sunlight, rigorous assessments indicate these do not offset health and safety detriments, with professional sleep organizations concluding that standard time better aligns human physiology with solar cycles for optimal societal functioning.

Legislative Origins

Initial Federal Proposals

The Sunshine Protection Act was first introduced at the federal level as S. 2537 in the on March 12, 2018, by Senator (R-FL). The bill sought to amend Section 3 of the of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) by eliminating the requirement for biannual clock changes and designating as the permanent standard time throughout the , with provisions allowing states to via legislation approved by . This proposal was directly modeled on Florida's state-level H.B. 1013, enacted on March 23, 2018, which similarly petitioned for federal authorization to adopt permanent year-round. The legislation was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation but received no further action, lapsing at the end of the 115th in 2019. Proponents, including Rubio, argued that permanent would promote energy conservation, reduce traffic accidents, and support economic activities like and retail by extending evening daylight, drawing on historical precedents such as the temporary year-round implemented under the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act of 1973. However, the bill faced implicit hurdles from federal law's longstanding deference to as the baseline, requiring congressional override of state exemptions under the . No companion was introduced in the during this initial session, marking the proposal's origin as a Senate-led initiative tied to Florida's for extended daylight to benefit its subtropical climate and outdoor economy.

Florida's Role and Early State Support

In March 2018, the passed House Bill 1013 by a vote of 103-10, expressing the state's legislative intent to adopt (DST) year-round if authorized by federal law, thereby becoming the first U.S. state to formally pursue permanent DST. The bill, signed into law by Governor on March 23, 2018, and codified in Florida Statutes as the state-level Sunshine Protection Act (Section 1.025), cited potential economic advantages from extended evening daylight, particularly for , , and sectors in 's subtropical climate where sunrise times are already relatively late during periods. Florida's action aligned with longstanding local preferences for maximizing afternoon sunlight, driven by empirical observations of increased activity and commerce during DST months, and it directly influenced federal advocacy led by Florida's congressional delegation, including Senator Marco Rubio's introduction of S. 2537, a national Sunshine Protection Act, on , 2018. The state's push underscored causal benefits of permanent DST in southern latitudes, where clock changes disrupt fewer morning routines compared to northern states, prioritizing evening productivity over early sunrises that often coincide with lower population activity levels. Florida's initiative spurred early adoption in other states seeking similar exemptions; by 2019, , , , , and had enacted comparable legislation contingent on congressional approval, reflecting a growing regional in favor of DST permanence amid critiques of biannual transitions' and efficiency costs. These measures collectively highlighted state-level momentum, with Florida's pioneering effort providing a model for overriding the of 1966's DST mandate through targeted federal amendments.

Key Provisions

Establishment of Permanent Daylight Saving Time

The Sunshine Protection Act amends section 3(a) of the of 1966 (15 U.S.C. § 260a(a)) to eliminate the seasonal observance of , replacing the temporary advancement of clocks—from the second Sunday in to the first Sunday in —with a permanent designation of the advanced time as the standard time zone throughout the . This change would abolish the biannual clock adjustments, preventing the spring-forward and fall-back transitions that have been federally mandated since 1966, except during periods of wartime suspension or state exemptions. Implementation would occur without an explicit delayed in text, though prior iterations specified advancement at 2:00 a.m. on the first Sunday in November following enactment to align with the existing fall transition. The provision preserves exemptions for states or territories currently observing year-round, such as and most of , allowing them to maintain their status unless they elect otherwise; no new opt-out mechanism is created for states currently complying with DST. This federal override would supersede any conflicting state laws enforcing clock changes, standardizing advanced time as the default unless grants further exemptions. Proponents argue this permanence reduces disruptions from time shifts, citing energy savings claims from extended evening daylight, though empirical data on net economic benefits remains debated; itself contains no provisions for studies or pilots to verify such outcomes post-enactment. The act's core mechanism relies on redefining "" under federal law, shifting the baseline without altering the underlying calculations or boundaries.

Provisions for State and Territorial Exemptions

The Sunshine Protection Act preserves exemptions for states and areas within states that are currently authorized to abstain from observance, allowing them to elect permanent instead of adopting the nationwide permanent . Under the , such exemptions apply to jurisdictions like the state of and the majority of (excluding the , which observes DST), which have long operated on permanent by virtue of state laws approved under the of 1966. U.S. territories that do not observe , including , , , the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the , would similarly be exempt from the mandate for permanent and could continue using permanent . These provisions ensure that the 's redefinition of as the new permanent standard—effective upon enactment—does not override pre-existing opt-outs, thereby respecting local legislative choices without requiring federal intervention for single-time-zone territories. Election of an exemption would necessitate affirmative legislative action by the state or territorial government, consistent with federal requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 260 et seq., which generally prohibit deviations unless confined to one or approved by . No additional federal opt-out mechanism is created for non-exempt states, limiting broader exemptions to those already in place.

Legislative History

2018-2021 Introductions and Stagnation

In March 2018, Senator introduced S. 2537, the Sunshine Protection Act of 2018, in the 115th Congress, aiming to amend the of 1966 by establishing permanent nationwide, effective immediately upon enactment, while preserving exemptions for states like and most of . The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation but received no further action, including no committee hearings or votes, amid broader congressional priorities and ongoing debates over the empirical merits of clock changes. President publicly expressed support via , stating he would sign such legislation to end the biannual adjustments, yet the bill stalled without advancing. This introduction followed Florida's state-level push, where Governor signed SB 858 in 2018 urging federal authorization for permanent to extend evening sunlight for tourism and economic activity. The legislation saw reintroduction in the 116th Congress on March 6, 2019, as S. 670 in the Senate, cosponsored by Rubio and Senator Rick Scott, alongside companion H.R. 1556 in the House by Representative Vern Buchanan, both seeking to repeal the seasonal transition to standard time and lock in daylight saving time permanently. Proponents argued it would reduce disruptions from clock shifts, citing data on increased traffic accidents post-adjustment, though no committee markup or floor consideration occurred, reflecting stagnation linked to divided stakeholder interests, including agricultural and education sectors favoring standard time alignment with solar noon. No equivalent bill advanced in 2020 during the 116th Congress's final session, hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic's disruption of legislative agendas and focus on emergency measures. By early 2021, in the 117th , S. 623 was introduced as the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021, again led by Rubio with bipartisan cosponsors including Senator , proposing implementation by November 2023 to allow transitional planning. Despite accumulating support from over 30 states via resolutions urging federal action—such as Tennessee's 2018 law and subsequent adoptions—the bill remained in the Senate Committee on , , and through 2021, with no hearings or votes, underscoring persistent inertia from unresolved tensions between permanent daylight saving time's purported retail and safety gains versus evidence of health costs like circadian misalignment. This period's repeated introductions without progression highlighted congressional reluctance to prioritize time policy amid competing fiscal and social issues, despite public polls showing majority opposition to biannual changes.

2022 Senate Passage and House Failure

On March 15, 2022, the United States Senate passed S. 623, the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021, by unanimous consent without recorded debate or amendments beyond a technical adjustment to establish permanent daylight saving time (DST). Sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) with cosponsors including Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the bipartisan legislation aimed to eliminate biannual clock changes by designating DST as the standard time nationwide, effective November 5, 2023, while preserving exemptions for states like Hawaii and Arizona. The measure received voice vote approval, reflecting broad initial support amid public frustration with clock adjustments, though it bypassed committee review, which later drew criticism from some members for lacking scrutiny. The bill's swift Senate advancement contrasted with prior stagnation, building on reintroductions since 2018 and fueled by arguments for economic benefits and reduced disruption, despite empirical evidence from past experiments—like the 1974 Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act, repealed after public backlash over safety concerns—indicating potential drawbacks such as darker winter mornings increasing risks for commuters and schoolchildren. Proponents cited polls showing majority public preference for permanent DST, but the legislation's passage highlighted procedural ease rather than rigorous evaluation of causal health and safety data, including studies linking clock shifts to increased heart attacks and accidents. Following Senate approval, the bill was received in the on March 16, 2022, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, where it stalled without hearings or votes. House inaction stemmed from competing legislative priorities, including budget reconciliation and responses to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, alongside divisions over whether permanent DST or better aligned with circadian biology and traffic safety data favoring the latter. Critics in both chambers, informed by historical repeals and recent analyses questioning DST's energy savings claims, argued for permanent to mitigate empirically documented disruptions like and crime spikes post-time change, preventing the bill from advancing before the 117th adjourned.

Reintroductions in 2023-2025

In the , the Sunshine Protection Act was reintroduced in the as S. 582 on March 1, 2023, sponsored by Senator (R-FL) with bipartisan cosponsors including Senator (D-MA). A companion , H.R. 1279, was introduced simultaneously in the by Representative (R-FL). Both measures proposed establishing permanent nationwide, subject to exemptions for certain states and territories, but were referred to committees—Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation for S. 582 and House Energy and Commerce for H.R. 1279—without advancing to floor votes or hearings during the session spanning 2023 and 2024. The lack of progress in the 118th reflected ongoing divisions over permanent versus permanent , despite prior passage in , with no recorded motions or debates on the reintroduced bills. Entering the 119th in 2025, the legislation was reintroduced in the as H.R. 139 on January 3 by Representative Buchanan and in the as S. 29 on January 7 by Senator (R-FL), supported by cosponsors including Senator (D-WA). These versions retained the core provisions for year-round , with H.R. 139 garnering over 25 cosponsors and S. 29 attracting 18 by mid-2025. Referred to the same committees as prior iterations, the bills underwent no substantive action, including hearings, amid continued state-level advocacy but federal inertia as of October 2025.

Scientific and Health Evidence

Circadian Rhythm Disruptions from Clock Changes

The human , an approximately 24-hour internal cycle regulated by the in the and primarily entrained by environmental light cues, becomes misaligned during (DST) transitions due to the abrupt shift in civil time relative to . In the spring forward transition, clocks are advanced by one hour, effectively shortening duration by that amount on the first night and delaying the sunrise by an hour relative to social schedules, which delays the morning light signal that normally advances the circadian phase. This results in a temporary desynchronization, or "social jet lag," where lag behind clock time, impairing onset, duration, and quality. Empirical studies demonstrate that this misalignment disrupts physiological processes beyond sleep, including melatonin suppression and cortisol elevation at mismatched times, exacerbating fatigue and in the days following the change. and data from controlled observations show reduced total sleep time and increased sleep fragmentation post-transition, with recovery typically requiring several days to a week as the body gradually phase-advances. The fall back transition, while allowing an extra hour of sleep initially, advances evening exposure relative to the internal clock, potentially delaying circadian and contributing to later bedtimes and misalignment over winter months. Health consequences linked to these disruptions include acute elevations in cardiovascular strain, with multiple analyses reporting a modest but statistically significant increase in acute incidence—up to 24-27% on the Monday following spring forward—attributed to sleep loss and activation disrupting vascular . However, some large-scale registry studies, examining over 170,000 patients, find no overall spike in events around transitions, suggesting the effect may be confined to vulnerable subgroups or confounded by behavioral factors like altered meal timing. Circadian misalignment from repeated biannual shifts has also been associated with broader risks, including heightened incidence and metabolic dysregulation, underscoring the causal role of phase desynchrony in amplifying morbidity.

Comparative Impacts of Permanent DST vs. Permanent Standard Time

Permanent standard time aligns more closely with human circadian rhythms by synchronizing clock time with solar noon, facilitating morning light exposure that entrains the body's internal clock and promotes alertness during peak activity hours. In contrast, permanent daylight saving time shifts clocks forward year-round, resulting in later winter sunrises—up to two hours after clock time in northern latitudes—which delays circadian phase and reduces morning photic input essential for suppressing and enhancing wakefulness. The endorses permanent standard time as optimal for circadian health, citing evidence that daylight saving time induces chronic misalignment akin to , exacerbating sleep debt and diurnal variation in performance. Empirical modeling of nationwide health outcomes indicates permanent standard time yields greater benefits than permanent daylight saving time. A 2025 Stanford University analysis, using circadian-informed simulations across U.S. zip codes, projected that permanent would reduce prevalence by 0.78 percentage points, by 0.06 percentage points, and by 0.13 percentage points, compared to smaller reductions under permanent (0.23, 0.02, and 0.04 points, respectively). These disparities stem from permanent 's preservation of earlier sunrises, which bolster morning peaks and metabolic regulation, whereas permanent 's evening light bias correlates with delayed sleep onset and prolonged exposure to artificial light, heightening risks for metabolic disorders. Peer-reviewed consensus from bodies reinforces that permanent mitigates vulnerabilities in adolescents, shift workers, and the elderly, who suffer amplified misalignment under permanent due to inherent delays or reduced adaptability.
Health MetricProjected Reduction with Permanent Standard TimeProjected Reduction with Permanent DST
0.78 percentage points0.23 percentage points
0.06 percentage points0.02 percentage points
0.13 percentage points0.04 percentage points
Traffic safety data further favors permanent standard time, as darker mornings under permanent elevate crash risks during commute hours when fatigue peaks. Transition studies show spring clock advances to increase fatal crashes by 6% in the following week, primarily from disruption and reduced ; extrapolating to permanent implementation suggests sustained morning hazards in winter, when sunrises lag clocks by 75-120 minutes in much of the U.S. Permanent avoids this by maintaining alignment with dawn, correlating with fewer pedestrian and cyclist incidents during school and work starts, per analyses of historical clock effects. Proponents of permanent cite potential evening light benefits for reducing after-dark accidents, but evidence indicates net safety gains from morning outweigh this, with no compensatory drop in overall fatalities observed in DST periods. Economic arguments for permanent daylight saving time, including energy savings and leisure extension, lack robust support when compared to permanent . Residential electricity demand rises 1% under due to extended evening cooling needs, negating purported conservation; permanent adoption would amplify this in summer without offsetting winter gains. losses from circadian disruption—estimated at higher healthcare costs and reduced output—accrue more under permanent daylight saving time, as chronic sleep deficits impair cognitive function more than uniform standard time scheduling. While some retail sectors claim evening daylight boosts commerce, aggregate data show no verifiable GDP uplift, and permanent standard time's health improvements could yield indirect savings via fewer morbidity-related absences. Claims of deterrence via later dusk under permanent daylight saving time remain anecdotal, unverified against baseline rates in standard time alignments.

Empirical Studies on Health Outcomes

Empirical studies have documented acute health risks associated with the biannual clock transitions mandated under current (DST) practices. A 2008 analysis of Swedish myocardial infarction registry data found an 8% increase in acute (MI) incidence during the week following the spring transition to DST, attributed to disruption and circadian misalignment, with no similar elevation after the fall transition. Subsequent U.S. studies corroborated elevated cardiovascular events post-spring forward, including a 24% rise in heart attacks on the Monday after the change, linked to lost and heightened on the cardiovascular system. A 2024 systematic review and of 19 studies indicated a potential increased risk of acute MI after the spring shift, though evidence quality was rated moderate due to heterogeneity in methodologies and small effect sizes. Conflicting findings exist regarding the magnitude of these effects. A 2025 of over 168,000 U.S. patients with acute found no significant increase in incidence during the DST transition week or subsequent weeks, suggesting minimal overall impact on heart attack rates when examined across large populations. Similarly, a analysis concluded that DST transitions have negligible effects on broad heart health metrics, potentially due to individual variability in adaptation. Stroke risks show analogous patterns, with observational data linking spring transitions to short-term spikes, possibly from disrupted architecture leading to and clotting. Beyond cardiovascular outcomes, clock changes correlate with broader disruptions in and . Peer-reviewed analyses report 15-30 minutes of reduced duration in the days following the DST onset, contributing to elevated risks of disturbances, behavioral disorders, and injuries. A computational model integrating epidemiological data identified clusters of elevated risks for issues and external injuries post-transition, with effects persisting up to two weeks. Fall transitions have been associated with increased suicides and hospital returns in some cohorts, though less consistently than effects. Regarding permanent DST as proposed by the Sunshine Protection Act, modeling studies predict inferior health outcomes compared to permanent standard time (ST). A 2025 circadian-informed simulation using U.S. population data estimated that permanent DST would exacerbate chronic misalignment, increasing obesity prevalence by less than permanent ST (which reduced it by 0.78 percentage points) and elevating stroke risks due to later sunrises desynchronizing biological clocks from solar time, particularly in northern latitudes. Empirical evidence from regions with year-round DST trials, such as post-1970s U.S. experiments, supports augmented social jet lag under permanent DST, correlating with persistent mood declines and higher vulnerability for evening chronotypes. Overall mortality patterns in Europe showed no net increase from transitions but highlighted seasonal variations favoring alignment with ST for minimizing disruptions. These findings underscore that while acute transition effects are empirically supported, long-term health favors permanent ST over DST for circadian synchronization.

Economic and Safety Arguments

Claims of Economic Benefits and Energy Savings

Proponents of the Sunshine Protection Act, including its primary sponsor Senator , assert that establishing permanent daylight saving time (DST) would stimulate economic growth by providing additional evening daylight, which encourages consumer spending on leisure, dining, and recreation activities. This extended light is claimed to benefit sectors reliant on after-work hours, such as retail and hospitality, with the estimating boosts in spending on dining, recreation, and travel during periods of longer evenings. Industry-specific claims highlight substantial revenue gains; for instance, golf associations have argued that each month of DST generates up to $400 million in additional industry revenue due to increased evening play, contributing to an overall annual economic impact of $84.1 billion from -related activities. Similarly, Senator has endorsed the legislation, stating it would promote economic expansion alongside improved well-being in states like . Regarding energy savings, advocates have historically invoked daylight saving time's origins in World War I-era conservation efforts, claiming permanent DST would reduce overall demand by minimizing artificial needs in evenings and avoiding the disruptions of biannual clock changes. However, empirical analyses, such as a 2008 in , indicate that DST implementation there resulted in net increased household costs of $8.6 million annually, primarily from higher use offsetting any reductions. More recent studies confirm minimal net savings—often less than 0.1% of total —with permanent DST potentially exacerbating summer cooling demands due to later sunsets aligning with heat hours. Proponents' energy arguments thus rely on outdated federal estimates from the , which modern data from the U.S. Department of and peer-reviewed research have largely contradicted.

Data on Traffic Safety and Crime Patterns

Studies on traffic safety reveal mixed effects from (DST) transitions, with the spring forward typically associated with a short-term increase in fatal crashes due to sleep disruption and circadian misalignment. A analysis of U.S. data from 2002–2006 found that the spring transition reallocates ambient , shifting some fatalities from evenings to mornings, but the one-hour sleep loss elevates overall daily risk by approximately 6% on the following the change. Similarly, a of 14 studies indicated elevated fatal risks post-DST onset, attributed to acute rather than shifts alone. Fall back transitions show smaller or negligible increases, as the extra sleep hour mitigates risks. For permanent DST, as proposed by the Sunshine Protection Act, suggests a potential net reduction in certain crashes by extending evening daylight year-round, when traffic volumes and speeds are higher. One projection estimated that year-round DST could prevent about 900 fatal crashes over five years by minimizing evening darkness during peak commuting hours, though this relies on historical patterns without accounting for behavioral adaptations. However, darker winter mornings under permanent DST could elevate and school-related incidents, as crash data from states indicate higher morning risks in low-light conditions; the (IIHS) reported that clock changes yield minimal net safety gains, with pedestrian fatalities decreasing post-spring forward but motorist crashes rising. Animal-vehicle collisions, such as deer strikes, also decline under permanent DST due to later sunsets aligning with reduced crepuscular activity periods. Absent annual transitions, permanent DST would eliminate transition-related spikes, potentially improving long-term safety if evening benefits outweigh morning drawbacks, though peer-reviewed comparisons favor for circadian alignment and reduced fatigue. Crime data consistently link extended evening daylight to lower rates of outdoor violent offenses, particularly , which drop sharply after the spring DST shift. An analysis of U.S. records from 1976–1990 found robbery rates fell by 51% in the hour following sunset post-spring transition, with a 7% daily overall, driven by increased deterring opportunistic street crimes. Fall endings reverse this, yielding a 27% evening robbery spike due to earlier darkness. rates similarly decrease by 0.025–0.028 per 100,000 during DST periods, per a regression discontinuity study of U.S. data, suggesting ambient reduces interpersonal violence opportunities. Under permanent DST, sustained later sunsets in winter would likely perpetuate these crime reductions year-round, as evening exposure correlates with 20–30% fewer property and violent incidents in affected hours, based on quasi-experimental DST . This effect holds across methodologies, though some attribute partial declines to offender fatigue post-transition rather than alone; however, long-term distribution dominates causal patterns in non-transitional scenarios. No robust data indicate increased morning crimes from darker commutes, as most violent offenses cluster post-sunset. Academic sources, including econometric panels, affirm these findings but note potential underreporting biases in , underscoring the need for causal controls beyond mere correlations.

Critiques of Pro-DST Economic Narratives

Critics of permanent Daylight Saving Time (DST) under the Sunshine Protection Act contend that purported economic benefits, such as enhanced retail sales and tourism from extended evening daylight, lack robust empirical support and often rely on outdated or sector-specific data. Proponents frequently cite increased after-work leisure activities boosting sectors like and , but a analysis of patterns found that while DST correlates with higher usage in some categories, it also elevates utility and expenditures, yielding no clear net economic gain. Similarly, claims of broader GDP uplift from evening overlook scheduling disruptions across supply chains and , where mismatched time zones impose coordination costs estimated in the hundreds of millions annually during transitions—costs that permanent DST would mitigate only partially due to persistent solar misalignment. The narrative of , a historical rationale repurposed for permanent DST to argue against "wasted" morning light, has been repeatedly debunked by empirical studies showing negligible or negative effects. A U.S. Department of Energy review confirmed DST yields at most a 0.03% in national electricity use, far below early 20th-century projections, while modern analyses reveal increased consumption from prolonged in evenings, particularly in southern states. A meta-analysis of 44 studies across countries estimated an average 0.34% savings during DST periods, but this diminishes to zero or reverses in warmer due to behavioral shifts toward higher evening demands. For permanent DST, evidence from the U.S. year-round trial indicated a slight overall increase in energy use, contradicting claims of gains from aligning clocks with commercial hours. Productivity arguments favoring permanent DST, which posit fewer dark mornings enhance worker output, face scrutiny for ignoring circadian disruptions that impair cognitive performance and investor . on DST transitions demonstrates reduced information processing efficiency in financial markets, with "spring forward" shifts linked to suboptimal earnings responses due to sleep deprivation—effects that permanent DST could exacerbate through chronic deviation from natural solar cues, potentially costing billions in lost efficiency. Cost-benefit models, such as one estimating welfare losses from DST equivalent to forgoing 754 euros per capita annually in (adjusted for and externalities), suggest that ending clock changes or adopting permanent yields superior economic outcomes by prioritizing biological alignment over speculative leisure-driven gains. These critiques highlight how pro-DST economic narratives often amplify anecdotal sector benefits while underweighting diffuse societal costs, with little causal evidence from randomized or quasi-experimental designs supporting net positivity.

Political and Public Debate

Supporters' Viewpoints and Motivations

Supporters of the Sunshine Protection Act, which seeks to establish permanent (DST) nationwide, primarily include bipartisan members of such as Senators (R-FL), the original sponsor in 2021, (R-FL), and (D-WA), who reintroduced the bill in January 2025. These legislators argue that abolishing biannual clock changes would end the associated disruptions to daily routines, sleep patterns, and productivity, framing the twice-yearly shifts as an outdated practice originating from efforts that no longer aligns with modern needs. A core motivation cited by proponents is the extension of evening daylight during standard time months, which they claim promotes economic activity by providing more hours for after-work , sales, and . For instance, Representative (R-FL) highlighted in a March 2025 op-ed that permanent DST would boost sectors like and , potentially increasing by enabling longer evening operations without the "fall back" that shortens productive daylight. Supporters reference historical data from the experiment with year-round DST, interpreting it as yielding modest gains, though they acknowledge mixed overall energy impacts. Public safety forms another key argument, with advocates asserting that additional afternoon and evening light reduces traffic fatalities and criminal activity, drawing on studies showing fewer accidents on DST days due to better visibility during peak commuting and leisure hours. Senator (D-MA), an early co-sponsor, emphasized in 2022 that this "extra hour of sunshine" could enhance by combating through prolonged daily light exposure, positioning the policy as a quality-of-life improvement over the status quo. Polling data reinforces this appeal, with a 2022 survey indicating 63% overall support for permanent DST, including majorities across party lines (66% Democrats, 63% Republicans, 59% independents), reflecting widespread frustration with clock changes rather than opposition to DST itself. Interest from business groups, such as the retail and golf industries, further motivates support, as these sectors lobby for permanent DST to maximize evening customer access and playtime, with the National Association of Convenience Stores endorsing the act for aligning time policies with consumer habits. Proponents like Senator Scott argue this aligns with by allowing non-observing states to opt for , while locking in DST for the majority to avoid patchwork time zones that complicate interstate . Overall, these viewpoints prioritize practical benefits of extended evenings over morning light, viewing the act as a modernization effort despite debates over its net effects.

Opponents' Arguments and Alternatives

Opponents of the Sunshine Protection Act, which seeks to establish permanent (DST), primarily cite misalignment between social clocks and natural solar cycles, arguing that it exacerbates health risks and safety hazards compared to . The (AASM) has consistently opposed the bill, asserting that permanent DST would perpetuate chronic circadian disruption, particularly in winter months when sunrises could occur as late as 8:30 a.m. or later in northern latitudes, delaying morning essential for regulating sleep-wake cycles. This misalignment, they contend, increases risks of , metabolic disorders, and cardiovascular events, drawing on that evolved under solar-aligned rhythms rather than artificially advanced evening . Safety concerns form another core argument, with critics highlighting elevated morning fatalities and risks for schoolchildren due to prolonged darkness during commute hours under permanent DST. Studies modeling year-round DST project higher rates of fatal crashes in the mornings, contrasting with data showing fewer incidents under , where earlier sunrises align with peak activity periods. Opponents also reference empirical links between DST transitions—and by extension, permanent DST's sustained offset—to spikes in heart attacks and workplace injuries, positing that minimizes these by better synchronizing light cues with biological imperatives. As an alternative, advocates for permanent standard time (PST) propose amending the of 1966 to eliminate clock changes in favor of year-round , which they argue restores natural alignment without the health detriments of DST's one-hour advance. This option, supported by organizations like the AASM, is projected to reduce prevalence by 0.78 percentage points and by similar margins nationwide, based on circadian modeling. Proponents emphasize that PST avoids the "social jet lag" of permanent DST while preserving evening daylight in summer through unaltered solar progression, positioning it as a evidence-based compromise over retaining biannual shifts or adopting the Act's framework. Some states, such as and (which already observe permanent standard time), serve as real-world examples where this approach correlates with stable health metrics absent DST disruptions.

Role of Interest Groups and Public Opinion

Proponents of the Sunshine Protection Act, which seeks to establish permanent daylight saving time, have included business associations representing retail, recreation, and outdoor industries, such as golf organizations and convenience store operators, who contend that extended evening daylight would increase consumer spending and leisure activities. These groups have lobbied Congress, highlighting perceived economic gains from later sunsets, though such claims have faced scrutiny for lacking robust empirical support beyond anecdotal industry reports. Opposition has been led by health and sleep organizations, including the (AASM), which in 2023 reiterated its stance against the bill, arguing that permanent DST disrupts circadian alignment with , exacerbating , particularly in mornings during winter months. The AASM, joined by the Coalition for Permanent —a alliance of medical, education, and safety advocates like the National PTA—has advocated for permanent , citing evidence from studies linking DST to increased risks of cardiovascular events and impaired cognitive function. These groups emphasize that better matches natural light patterns for , countering commercial narratives with peer-reviewed research on health outcomes. Public opinion consistently favors abolishing biannual clock changes, with polls showing a slim majority preferring permanent DST over , though support has fluctuated and recent surveys indicate rising preference for amid debates. A 2022 CBS News poll found 46% supporting permanent DST and 33% favoring permanent . In contrast, a 2025 Gallup poll reported 40% for permanent DST, with over 50% overall seeking to "sunset" DST in favor of to avoid disruptions. A March 2025 survey showed 54% backing permanent DST, reflecting persistent division influenced by perceptions of evening convenience versus morning light for safety and routines. These variations underscore how public views are shaped by regional climates, personal schedules, and media framing of economic versus trade-offs, with no strong enough to override scientific critiques from bodies like the AASM.

Current Status and Implications

Actions in the 119th Congress

In the 119th United States Congress, which convened on January 3, 2025, the Sunshine Protection Act was reintroduced in both chambers to establish permanent daylight saving time nationwide, eliminating seasonal clock adjustments. The House version, H.R. 139, was introduced on January 3, 2025, by Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill garnered 30 cosponsors, predominantly Republicans (28-2 partisan spectrum), reflecting strong but largely partisan support. As of October 2025, it remains pending in committee with no recorded hearings, markups, or floor actions. In the , S. 29 was introduced on January 7, 2025, by Senator (R-FL) and read twice before referral to the Committee on Commerce, , and Transportation. It secured 18 cosponsors, indicating some bipartisan interest, though primarily from Republicans. Like its House counterpart, the bill has seen no committee advancement or votes by late 2025. Proponents, including Buchanan and , publicly renewed advocacy efforts in March 2025, emphasizing benefits such as reduced disruptions to daily routines and potential economic gains from extended evening daylight. Despite these pushes and prior momentum from the 117th —where a similar Senate bill passed but stalled in the House—the 119th session's versions have not progressed beyond introduction, mirroring historical patterns of committee inertia on time policy reforms.

Potential Nationwide and State-Level Effects

If enacted, the Sunshine Protection Act would eliminate biannual clock adjustments nationwide, potentially reducing acute health risks associated with time transitions, including a 6-24% increase in myocardial infarctions and elevated incidences in the days following the spring forward. Traffic fatalities rise by approximately 6% post-spring transition due to sleep disruption and altered alertness, with similar patterns for fall changes, suggesting overall safety gains from stable scheduling. However, permanent daylight saving time (DST) would advance clocks year-round, resulting in darker winter mornings that misalign human circadian rhythms with solar noon, potentially exacerbating sleep deficits, , and morning commute hazards, as evidenced by studies favoring permanent for biological synchronization. Economically, proponents anticipate boosts from extended evening daylight, including increased retail sales and recreational activities—such as golf courses gaining an estimated $200 million annually from one extra hour of play—but empirical data on remains inconclusive, with some analyses showing negligible or reversed savings due to higher morning heating demands. Public safety could improve via reduced evening crime rates linked to later sunset, though this benefit is offset by potential rises in morning accidents from reduced visibility. These nationwide shifts would apply uniformly except for existing exemptions like and , which maintain permanent , minimizing federal-state conflicts but requiring coordination for interstate rail, , and . At the state level, the Act permits legislatures to exempt themselves and observe permanent via a vote, enabling localized adaptation to agricultural, educational, or climatic needs—Florida, for instance, has long advocated permanent DST for , while northern states might prefer to avoid prolonged morning darkness impacting schoolchildren's safety. As of 2025, approximately 20 states have enacted contingent laws to adopt permanent DST upon federal authorization, signaling broad compliance but with opt-out provisions that could create minor temporal mismatches in border regions, complicating cross-state commerce or synchronization without widespread adoption. Such flexibility contrasts with prior federal prohibitions on year-round DST, potentially leading to a national standard while allowing rare deviations, as few states are likely to diverge given economic incentives for alignment.

References

  1. [1]
    S.29 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026)
    This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time. States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may choose the standard time for ...
  2. [2]
    S.623 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 117th Congress (2021-2022)
    This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time, effective November 5, 2023. States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may ...
  3. [3]
    Pros and Cons of Permanent Daylight Saving Time
    The bill's supporters argue that it will put an end to the needless headache of switching the clocks back and forth and potentially spur economic growth.<|control11|><|separator|>
  4. [4]
    Latest Updates: Daylight Saving Time in 2025 - Sleep Foundation
    Oct 10, 2025 · What Is the Status of the Sunshine Protection Act? So far in 2025, there has been no new movement on the Sunshine Protection Act by the U.S. ...Daylight Saving Time: Latest... · What Is the Sunshine...
  5. [5]
    Daylight saving time: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine ... - NIH
    Shifting from standard time to DST has been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospital ...
  6. [6]
    Daylight saving time and mortality—proceed with caution - PMC - NIH
    Feb 21, 2024 · The spring ST- > DST transition is associated with increases in the most common causes of death—heart attacks and strokes. In addition, there ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  7. [7]
    Permanent standard time is the optimal choice for health and safety
    Permanent standard time (ST) is favored because it aligns with human circadian biology, and seasonal time changes (DST) cause misalignment and health risks.Skip main navigation · ABSTRACT · INTRODUCTION · DISCUSSION
  8. [8]
    AASM continues to oppose permanent daylight saving time bill
    Mar 3, 2023 · The AASM continues to oppose the Sunshine Protection Act and is advocating for Congress to restore permanent standard time.
  9. [9]
    Daylight Saving Time (DST) - Congress.gov
    At least one empirical study based in Indiana found that DST increases electricity demand. ... The Sunshine Protection Act of 2019 would make DST permanent for ...
  10. [10]
    Daylight Saving Time - Astronomical Applications Department
    History of Daylight Saving Time in the U.S.​​ Although standard time in time zones was instituted in the U.S. and Canada by the railroads in 1883, it was not ...
  11. [11]
    History & info - Daylight Saving Time, early adoption, U.S. law
    [See law]It both established standard time zones and set summer DST to begin on March 31, 1918. Daylight Saving Time was observed for seven months in 1918 and ...
  12. [12]
    Introduction - Daylight Saving: Topics in Chronicling America
    The Standard Time Act is signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. March 31, 1918, Daylight Saving Time goes into effect in the U.S. for the first time.
  13. [13]
    Full text - Daylight Saving Time - U.S. Law, 1918 & 1942 - Webexhibits
    CHAPTER 24. An Act To save daylight and to provide standard time, for the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the ...
  14. [14]
    Daylight Saving Time 1918 in the United States
    Mar 31, 1918 - Daylight Saving Time Started. When local standard time was about to reach. Sunday, March 31, 1918, 2:00:00 am clocks were turned forward 1 ...
  15. [15]
    The History of Daylight Saving Time - Smithsonian Magazine
    Mar 16, 2022 · Year-round daylight saving time (DST), signed into law by President Richard Nixon in January 1974, sought to maximize evening sunlight.
  16. [16]
    [PDF] DOES DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME SAVE ENERGY? EVIDENCE ...
    None of the empirical studies finds an overall effect that is statistically different from 0, and the simulation-based studies find mixed results.
  17. [17]
    The dark side of daylight saving time - Harvard Health
    Mar 1, 2023 · Moving the clock ahead in the spring for daylight saving time can disrupt sleep and worsen conditions like depression, anxiety, and seasonal ...
  18. [18]
    Daylight Saving Time and Fatal Vehicle Crashes
    The transition into DST caused over 30 deaths annually (2002-2011), with sleep deprivation increasing risk, and a social cost of $275 million.
  19. [19]
    [PDF] HOW AMBIENT LIGHT INFLUENCES CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
    The social cost of violent crime is high, so even a small drop in crime rates due to an increase in evening daylight could make extending DST cost-effective. We ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  20. [20]
    Daylight saving time causes lower productivity and higher health ...
    Mar 8, 2025 · A vast body of research shows that every year, the shift to daylight saving time needlessly exacerbates these risks, disrupting millions of Americans' sleep.
  21. [21]
    S.2537 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2018 - Congress.gov
    The bill amends the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make daylight savings time the new, permanent standard time.
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Daylight Saving Time - Members Brief - Ohio.gov
    Oct 19, 2023 · In 2018, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio introduced the “Sunshine Protection Act.” The bill proposed the establishment of permanent DST for all of the ...
  23. [23]
    Why does the US have daylight saving time? - USAFacts
    The Sunshine Protection Act, which would move the US to permanent daylight saving time, has been introduced to Congress several times, beginning in 2018. It was ...
  24. [24]
    The 2025 Florida Statutes - Online Sunshine
    (1) This section may be cited as the “Sunshine Protection Act.” (2) If the United States Congress amends 15 U.S.C. s. 260a to authorize states to observe ...
  25. [25]
  26. [26]
    Buchanan, Scott Renew Calls for Permanent Daylight Saving Time
    Mar 7, 2025 · Tout Health and Productivity Benefits to Making Change Permanent. Follows Florida's 2018 Enactment of Year-Round Daylight Saving Time.
  27. [27]
    Report Daylight Saving Time | State Legislation
    Urges the U.S. House of Representatives and the president of the United States to permanently adopt DST by passing the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021. ... Urges ...
  28. [28]
    H.R.5278 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To make daylight savings ...
    Summary of H.R.5278 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To make daylight savings time permanent for the State of Florida, and for other purposes.
  29. [29]
    H.R.139 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Sunshine Protection Act of ...
    This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time. States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may choose the standard time for ...Text (1) · Actions (2) · Titles (2) · Cosponsors (26)
  30. [30]
    S.623 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 117th Congress (2021-2022)
    This Act may be cited as the “Sunshine Protection Act of 2021”. SEC. 2. Making daylight saving time permanent. (a) Repeal of temporary period ...
  31. [31]
    H.R.1279 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Sunshine Protection Act of ...
    This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time. States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may choose the standard time for ...
  32. [32]
    ICYMI: Buchanan Makes the Case for Permanent Daylight Saving ...
    Mar 10, 2025 · Congressman Vern Buchanan penned an op-ed in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune calling on Congress to take action to making daylight saving time permanent.
  33. [33]
    Sunshine Protection Act - Wikipedia
    The Sunshine Protection Act was first introduced in 2018 by U.S. senator Marco Rubio ( R‑FL ), modeled after a 2018 Florida bill of the same name. U.S. ...Background · Provisions · Legislative history · Debate
  34. [34]
    CS/CS/SB 858: Daylight Saving Time - Florida Senate
    Daylight Saving Time; Creating the "Sunshine Protection Act"; providing legislative intent regarding the State of Florida and its political subdivisions ...
  35. [35]
    S.670 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2019 116th Congress (2019-2020)
    Introduced in Senate (03/06/2019). Sunshine Protection Act of 2019. This bill makes daylight savings time the new, permanent standard time. States with areas ...
  36. [36]
    HR 1556 (116 th ): Sunshine Protection Act of 2019 - GovTrack.us
    Mar 6, 2019 · This bill was introduced on March 6, 2019, in a previous session of Congress, but it did not receive a vote.
  37. [37]
    U.S. Senate approves bill to make daylight saving time permanent
    Mar 16, 2022 · The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation ... The Senate approved the measure, called the Sunshine Protection Act, unanimously by voice vote.Missing: passage | Show results with:passage
  38. [38]
    S.623 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sunshine Protection Act of 2021
    This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time, effective November 5, 2023. States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may choose ...Missing: stagnation | Show results with:stagnation
  39. [39]
    Senate passes bill that would make Daylight Saving Time permanent
    Mar 16, 2022 · The Sunshine Protection Act passed the chamber by unanimous consent. The bill would still need to pass the House and be signed by President ...
  40. [40]
    Six things to know about the political debate around daylight saving ...
    Nov 5, 2023 · When the Sunshine Protection Act was first debated in a House subcommittee, experts said switching to permanent daylight saving time would do ...
  41. [41]
    Clock Changing Persists for at Least Another Year -...
    Oct 31, 2022 · Momentary hope for those fed up with the twice-yearly, clock-resetting ritual came with U.S. Senate passage of the Sunshine Protection Act of ...
  42. [42]
    S.582 “Sunshine Protection Act of 2023” - Congress.gov
    This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time. States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may choose the standard time for ...
  43. [43]
    Senator Markey Joins Senator Rubio in Reintroduction to Make ...
    Mar 2, 2023 · Markey (D-Mass.) joined Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in reintroducing the Sunshine Protection Act of 2023 for the 118th Congress. The ...<|separator|>
  44. [44]
    Buchanan, Rubio Introduce Legislation to Make Daylight Saving ...
    Mar 2, 2023 · Congressman Vern Buchanan recently introduced the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent and end the twice-a-year clock ...
  45. [45]
    S.582 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Sunshine Protection Act of 2023
    This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time. States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may choose the standard time for those ...
  46. [46]
    Senator Murray Reintroduces Bipartisan Sunshine Protection Act ...
    Jan 8, 2025 · In March of 2022, Senator Murray helped ensure passage of the Sunshine Protection Act by unanimous consent alongside Senator Rubio. Senator ...
  47. [47]
    Sen. Rick Scott Leads Bipartisan Bill to “Lock The Clock”
    Jan 8, 2025 · Senator Rand Paul said, “The Sunshine Protection Act will allow states the freedom to decide if they want to permanently follow Daylight Saving ...Missing: territories | Show results with:territories
  48. [48]
    H.R.139 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Sunshine Protection Act of ...
    139 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026) | Get alerts. Bill. Hide Overview. Sponsor: Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16] ...
  49. [49]
    S.29 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026)
    29 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026) | Get alerts. Bill. Hide Overview. Sponsor: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL] ( ...
  50. [50]
    S.29 - Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026)
    A bill to make daylight saving time permanent, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  51. [51]
    Daylight saving time, circadian rhythms, and cardiovascular health
    The available evidence suggests the existence of an association between DST and a modest increase of occurrence of acute myocardial infarction.
  52. [52]
    The effects of daylight saving time and clock time transitions on ...
    The transition to DST was associated with adverse effects on sleep duration and quality, as well as increased sleepiness, more evident in evening chronotypes.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  53. [53]
    Impact on health outcomes associated with changing the clock 1 ...
    The fall transition was associated with significantly reduced TIB, sleep efficiency, and TST and increased insomnia. Our findings should be useful in designing ...Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
  54. [54]
    Daylight Savings Time and Acute Myocardial Infarction | Cardiology
    Sep 9, 2025 · Finally, another analysis using data from the BMC2 database demonstrated a 24% increase in AMI incidence on the Monday after spring DST. As much ...
  55. [55]
    The effects of daylight saving time on acute myocardial infarction
    First, the spring transition to DST increased AMI admissions by approximately 27.2%. The magnitude of the effect we find is considerably higher than what has ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  56. [56]
    Daylight Saving Time May Not Trigger Heart Attacks After All, Study ...
    Sep 9, 2025 · Duke University School of Medicine study of 170000 patients found no spike in heart events around daylight saving time, but sleep loss still ...Missing: empirical evidence forward
  57. [57]
    Study suggests most Americans would be healthier without daylight ...
    Sep 15, 2025 · Supporters of permanent daylight saving time say more evening light could save energy, deter crime and give people more leisure time after work.
  58. [58]
    Daylight saving time harms health and increases inequalities
    Oct 24, 2024 · In contrast, permanent standard time is the better option for promoting public health, leading to improved physical and mental health and safety ...
  59. [59]
    7 Things to Know About Daylight Saving Time | Johns Hopkins
    Mar 9, 2023 · “The scientific evidence points to acute increases in adverse health consequences from changing the clocks, including in heart attack and stroke ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  60. [60]
    Changing the clocks helps pedestrians but hurts motorists - IIHS
    Apr 11, 2024 · Clock changes make pedestrians safer, but vehicle occupants fare worse, with a net effect of 29 more fatal vehicle crashes and 26 fewer ...
  61. [61]
    Does Daylight Saving Time Actually Save? Research Shows Costs ...
    Oct 30, 2024 · Recent studies have found that people actually consume more energy during DST, because with more daylight, people run air conditioners for longer.
  62. [62]
    Shifts to and from Daylight Saving Time and Incidence of Myocardial ...
    Oct 30, 2008 · The incidence of acute myocardial infarction was significantly increased for the first 3 weekdays after the transition to daylight saving time in the spring.Missing: empirical studies strokes<|separator|>
  63. [63]
    Why Daylight Saving Time Could Increase Your Heart Attack Risk
    Mar 8, 2017 · Research shows a 24 percent jump in the number of heart attacks occurring the Monday after we "spring forward" for daylight saving time compared ...Missing: empirical evidence
  64. [64]
    Here's your wake-up call: Daylight saving time may impact your ...
    Mar 1, 2024 · Scientific researchers have noticed a marked increase in heart attacks and strokes in the days following this time change each year.
  65. [65]
    Daylight Saving Time Transitions and Risk of Heart Attack - PubMed
    Jul 26, 2024 · Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that there may be an increased risk of AMI after the spring transition, although there is moderate to ...
  66. [66]
    Daylight Savings Time and Acute Myocardial Infarction - PMC - NIH
    Sep 9, 2025 · In this cross-sectional study of 168 870 patients, no significant differences were found in the incidence rates of acute myocardial infarction ...
  67. [67]
    Study shows daylight saving time has minimal effect on heart health
    Feb 27, 2024 · A recent Mayo Clinic study examining the effects of daylight saving time (DST) on heart health suggests that the impact is likely minimal.
  68. [68]
    Measurable health effects associated with the daylight saving time shift
    Jun 8, 2020 · We found four prominent, elevated risk clusters, including cardiovascular diseases (such as heart attacks), injuries, mental and behavioral ...
  69. [69]
    Debunking myths about daylight saving time: ten things everyone ...
    The American Academy of Sleep Medicine updated its position on pST to clarify that pDST would be worse than continuing with seasonal DST.
  70. [70]
    Circadian-informed modeling predicts regional variation in obesity ...
    Sep 15, 2025 · To estimate the impact of permanent SDT or DST on health, we modeled the circadian impact of SDT, DST, and Biannual Shifting (BAS) across a year ...Sign Up For Pnas Alerts · Materials And Methods · Circadian ModelsMissing: peer- | Show results with:peer-<|separator|>
  71. [71]
    All cause and cause specific mortality associated with transition to ...
    Mar 6, 2024 · In this study, transition to daylight saving time was found to affect mortality patterns in the US, but an association with additional deaths overall was not ...
  72. [72]
    Daylight saving time affects European mortality patterns - Nature
    Nov 14, 2022 · It shows that mortality decreases in spring and increases in fall during the first two weeks following each DST transition.
  73. [73]
    Why Congress Should Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent
    Sep 14, 2020 · It would boost economic growth, ease the mental health ... That's why Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced the Sunshine Protection Act ...
  74. [74]
    To jumpstart the economy, make daylight saving time permanent
    Mar 7, 2022 · ... economic growth. Congress first passed a bill to add an extra hour ... Sunshine Protection Act for what it really is: a stimulus ...
  75. [75]
  76. [76]
    Research supports Sunshine Protection Act - Valhalla
    Dec 16, 2022 · For example, one month of DST is worth up to four hundred million for the golf industry and one hundred fifty million for the barbeque industry.
  77. [77]
    Push to make daylight saving time permanent has longtime backers
    Mar 19, 2022 · The Sunshine Protection Act was offered by Sen. ... A 2018 study by the World Golf Foundation found that golf generates $84.1 billion a year in ...
  78. [78]
    Tuberville: Let's Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent
    Nov 3, 2023 · ... Sunshine Protection Act, a bill to make Daylight Saving Time permanent. ... economic growth, and the overall well-being of Alabamians. Read ...
  79. [79]
    Energy Conservation Potential of Extended Daylight Saving Time ...
    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 ...
  80. [80]
    Daylight saving push skirts energy debate - E&E News by POLITICO
    Mar 16, 2022 · Instead of decreasing energy consumption, Kotchen found, daylight saving time actually cost Indiana homes an additional $8.6 million in ...
  81. [81]
    Daylight saving time: Economic expert explains risks and benefits
    Nov 1, 2024 · Switching permanently to either standard time or daylight saving time would disadvantage either early risers or night owls, while the current ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
  82. [82]
    Does Daylight Saving Time Save Energy? Evidence From A Natural ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · Nevertheless, there is surprisingly little evidence that DST actually saves energy. This paper takes advantage of a natural experiment in the ...<|separator|>
  83. [83]
    Spring Forward at Your Own Risk: Daylight Saving Time and Fatal ...
    I find that shifting ambient light only reallocates fatalities within a day, while sleep deprivation caused by the spring transition increases risk.
  84. [84]
    Daylight-Saving Time & Health: A Systematic Review of Beneficial ...
    Mar 17, 2025 · The evidence suggests DST-Onset transitions increase risk of acute myocardial infarction (17 studies, 5 high quality) and fatal traffic accidents (14 studies, ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  85. [85]
    Does DST Make The Roads More Dangerous For Drivers and ...
    Nov 15, 2024 · A study suggests that over five years, around 900 fatal crashes could be avoided if DST were year-round.
  86. [86]
    Permanent daylight saving time would reduce deer-vehicle collisions
    Nov 2, 2022 · In contrast to widespread reductions under DST, permanent standard time is projected to increase DVCs in all states (Figures 4B and 4D), ...
  87. [87]
    Using Daylight Saving Time to Measure How Ambient Light ...
    Robbery rates decrease by an average of 51% during the hour of sunset following the shift to DST in the spring. We also find large drops in cases of reported ...
  88. [88]
    Fighting crime with Daylight Saving Time - Brookings Institution
    Oct 29, 2015 · When DST begins in the spring, robbery rates for the entire day fall an average of 7 percent, with a much larger 27 percent drop during the ...
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Using Daylight Saving Time to Measure How Ambient Light ...
    Our results are consistent across methods, and suggest that robbery, a violent street crime, decreases by approximately 51% of the pre-DST mean in the hour ...
  90. [90]
    Daylight saving time and crime: Does tiredness also affect criminal ...
    Jan 24, 2018 · The empirical evidence suggests that reduction in crime rates could be driven by the tiredness of potential offenders and interpreted under the ...
  91. [91]
    Shedding Light on Daylight Saving Time - JPMorganChase
    Nov 1, 2016 · Although DST was originally motivated by efforts to reduce energy costs, the economic impacts of DST have been difficult to evaluate. The energy ...Missing: permanent | Show results with:permanent
  92. [92]
    The Economic Cost of Daylight Savings Time | Chmura Blog
    Mar 11, 2024 · This includes $374.75 million from increased heart attacks, $251.53 million from increases in strokes, $18.35 million from additional workplace ...
  93. [93]
    Does Daylight Saving Time Conserve Energy? - Scientific American
    Mar 1, 2009 · But recent studies have cast doubt on the energy argument—some research has even found that it ultimately leads to greater power use.
  94. [94]
    Daylight Saving Time Isn't Saving Much Energy - The New York Times
    Mar 14, 2018 · A 2017 analysis of 44 different papers on the subject found that, on average, the policy helped save 0.34 percent of electricity use.
  95. [95]
    Kleppe's paper "The Effects of Daylight Saving Time Adjustments on ...
    We examine the effects of “spring forward” DST advances, which disrupt the human sleep cycle and economic activities, on investors' processing of earnings news.Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  96. [96]
    Are we underestimating the costs of daylight saving time? - LSE
    Mar 19, 2024 · Our cost-benefit analysis reveals that ending DST would be associated with welfare gains equivalent to an income gain of roughly 754 euros per ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  97. [97]
  98. [98]
    Daylight saving 2024: The debate to end the time change - NPR
    Mar 8, 2024 · When the Sunshine Protection Act was first debated in a House subcommittee, experts said switching to permanent daylight saving time would do ...
  99. [99]
    Why permanent daylight saving time is a bad idea | CU Boulder Today
    Mar 28, 2022 · And, “getting that extra hour of sunshine into people's lives,” could improve public safety, save energy and boost mental health, said Markey.
  100. [100]
    Voters Support Making Daylight Saving Time Permanent
    Mar 23, 2022 · Over two-thirds of voters (69 percent) support this legislation. Older voters support the bill by a +56-point margin, while younger voters ...
  101. [101]
    Opposition to the Sunshine Protection Act and Permanent Daylight ...
    Apr 12, 2025 · The discussion revolves around the Sunshine Protection Act and the pros and cons of implementing Daylight Saving Time (DST) year-round, with ...Senator's Response to Sunshine Protection Act and Daylight Saving ...I strongly disagree with the "Sunshine Protection Act" - FacebookMore results from www.facebook.com
  102. [102]
    Which members of Congress have supported permanent daylight ...
    Sep 14, 2025 · Buchanan, who has also introduced several versions of the Sunshine Protection Act, again introduced the act to lock the clocks this year.
  103. [103]
    Why should we abolish Daylight Saving Time? - PMC - NIH
    We should abandon DST and return to Standard Time (which is when the sun clock time most closely matches the social clock time) throughout the year.
  104. [104]
    Daylight savers or night wasters? The case against permanent ...
    Mar 8, 2024 · This brief recommends rejection of the Sunshine Protection Act and amendment of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to abolish DST in favour of permanent standard ...
  105. [105]
    SPECIAL-INTEREST LOBBIES | Save Standard Time
    Ditch Daylight Saving Time. Permanent Standard Time lets us sleep later for health, mood, safety, education, and economy. We're a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.
  106. [106]
    The stakeholders of daylight saving time | The Reynolds Center
    Oct 26, 2020 · DST Proponents​​ One of the strongest advocates for setting clocks ahead in the summer was a turn-of-the-century Brit named William Willett. ...
  107. [107]
    Time Is of the Essence for Lobbyists on Daylight Saving Debate
    Apr 10, 2025 · A fight over Senate legislation to make daylight saving time permanent year-round is drawing in a who's who of lobbying interests.
  108. [108]
    Coalition for Permanent Standard Time: Ditch Daylight Saving Time
    CpST is a dedicated group of diverse organizations and individuals who support the elimination of biannual clock change in the United States.
  109. [109]
    About Us - SAVE STANDARD TIME
    Save Standard Time is a founding member of the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time, established in 2023 with the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, National ...Missing: lobbying | Show results with:lobbying
  110. [110]
    Permanent Standard Time » cet.org
    Such special-interest groups support many of the bills for permanent DST in state legislatures today, and their support pressures Congress to extend this ...Missing: lobbying | Show results with:lobbying
  111. [111]
    Will We Ever Stop Changing the Clocks? Ending DST | Almanac.com
    Discover why Americans still change the clocks twice a year, which states want permanent time, and the latest updates on ending Daylight Saving Time.<|separator|>
  112. [112]
    More Than Half in U.S. Want Daylight Saving Time Sunsetted
    Mar 4, 2025 · 40% of US adults say they are in favor of daylight saving time, while 6% are uncertain. These findings come from a Jan. 21-27 Gallup poll.
  113. [113]
    Majority of Americans Prefer Year-Round Daylight Saving Time ...
    Mar 10, 2025 · 54% of Americans favor eliminating clock changes in favor of permanent daylight saving time, a Stetson survey reveals.
  114. [114]
    S. 29: Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 - GovTrack.us
    119th Congress: Sunshine Protection Act of 2025.” www.GovTrack ...
  115. [115]
    Will daylight saving time be permanent? Sunshine Protection Act ...
    Jul 16, 2025 · Has the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 been approved by Congress? It has not. H.R. 139 was introduced in the House on Jan. 3, 2025, by Buchanan ...<|separator|>
  116. [116]
    Whitehouse, Scott, Colleagues Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to ...
    Jan 9, 2025 · “The Sunshine Protection Act will allow states the freedom to decide if they want to permanently follow Daylight Saving Time or not. I'm proud ...Missing: potential effects
  117. [117]
    [OC] 20 US states have passed legislation to permanently adopt DST
    Mar 7, 2025 · The disclaimer says that no state can actually change to permanent DST without change in federal legislation (implying it's not a matter of ...
  118. [118]
    Is Daylight Saving Time Worth Saving?
    Mar 11, 2024 · Recent data shows that 40% of Americans prefer year-round standard time while 31% prefer year-round daylight saving time, leaving 28% that would ...