Study: Daylight Saving Time actually raises utility bills

Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:06PM EST

See Comments (2000)

It's official: Daylight Saving Time is a bust. Designed (and recently extended) as a measure to save energy in a period of inflated electricity prices, an in-depth University of California study has now shown that DST doesn't save anyone any money at all. In fact, it's costing consumers extra, to the tune of $3.19 in extra utility bills per year.

The study was made possible because of the peculiarities of the state of Indiana, which was only partially on DST until 2006. When the whole state finally went DST (to sync with the national business day), some comparisons vs. the prior method were made apparent. The study calculated that the shift costs Indiana residents an extra $8.6 million in electricity bills in total.

Why? Shouldn't they be, well, saving daylight -- and burning fewer light bulbs?

They are, said the study. But while lighting bills were reduced, air-conditioning units had to run more often, because people were home on hot afternoons when they'd otherwise be still at the office. Heaters had to be run on cool mornings, too, when people got up and it was still dark outside.

Professor Matthew Kotchen, who pioneered the study, noted, "I've never had a paper with such a clear and unambiguous finding as this."

This isn't the first time the energy-saving rationale of Daylight Saving Time has been attacked. The first was in 1976, when the National Bureau of Standards found that there was no significant energy savings after the switch. The recent expansion of DST to a few extra weeks was also revealed to have saved no energy during its run. And yet here we are...

In related news, it was also revealed that Daylight Saving Time actually creates no additional daylight.

Comments on Study: Daylight Saving Time actually raises utility bills

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1986 Posted by swcornell on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:50PM EDT Report Abuse

    This cost doesn't include the time we all spend doing the chages twice a year. It does not include the cost of all the VCR's and other electronic equipment that no longer automattically change time for DST. This also does not include the cost to the computer industry to "fix" all the computers to handle the new "extended" DST. I truely believe this was a conspiracy to obsolete millions of dollars of electronic equipment so we would be motivated to "BUY MORE"!!!

  • 1987 Posted by jsawin62 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    Well, I have my first electric bill since we actually went on daylight savings time here in Maine and it is down $14.00. That is quite a savings to me. Forget the analysis people, I am a real person with real savings. Amen

  • 1988 Posted by gregmike06 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:12PM EDT Report Abuse

    Its not about the energy. Its about the children waiting for a bus to school. For $3.19 cents a year per household I think thats a good deal to ensure that the children of America get to school safely.

  • 1989 Posted by petersonplacex2 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:08PM EDT Report Abuse

    I always thought DST was for the farmers to have longer time in the fields before headlights were put on tractors and combines. This was supposed to increase grain production and harvest....

  • 1990 Posted by doogieoyea on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    Here's to everyone..... work from sun up to sun down. Been going on for eons.

  • 1991 Posted by frhowe2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    I say lets keep the longer daylight permanently. I love the extra daylight and besides what is an extra 3.19 a year that is not even a gallon of gas. More time outside sleep does not get messed up.

  • 1992 Posted by downhomeace on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    I for one like DST. When I get home from my regular job I have more time to work around home,like the garden,the lawn, and a hundred other things that needs doing. At work we went to four ten hour days a week,witch about everyone likes.That saves a little on gasoline maybe,as its 24 miles one way,to work.I can't see what all the "BIOLOGICAL CLOCK" stuff is about.I can't seem to get to bed before 10:00 o'clock,more often 11:00 or 11:30 sometimes 12:00. I still get up at 5:30 AM to go to work.I go to bed tired usually get up tired no matter what time the clock says it is! As far as saving energy I can't see it,save more here,use more there!I wonder what this study by some college educated moron cost us!It's like me writing this,kind of a waste of energy.

  • 1993 Posted by nebrtornado on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:35PM EDT Report Abuse

    I'm ready to end this back-and-forth mess! Get everyone back on standard time and leave it alone.

  • 1994 Posted by blake_mcvey on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:09PM EDT Report Abuse

    Hey, I'll gladly pay an extra three bucks a year if it means it can be lighter later. I hate it in the winter when it gets dark at 5:00 or earlier. I definitely don't mind if it is dark in the morning--what's the big deal with that? I love daylight savings time!

  • 1995 Posted by sweber11@sbcglobal.net on Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:35AM EDT Report Abuse

    It doesn't cost any more to run the A/C on hot days with daylight savings time as it does with out it. Time is not sun light. We extend our clocks 1 hour so the sun doesn't go down at the same time and get dark earlier. The sun goes down at the same time every day, every month, and every season. And before you open your mouths, you know what I am talking about. This morning it rose at 7:54am, without daylight savings it would have been 6:54am. Sun would have been up an hour earlier. It doesn't cost any more to run lights then it does without daylight savings time. You people have no brains. We turn on lights when it's dark, not when the daylight savings time is 9pm for example. It's dark, we turn on the lights, no matter what time it is.

  • 1996 Posted by papalegs2520 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:59PM EDT Report Abuse

    Honest Lawyers????? Honest Politicians ?????? They make the rules,they also change the rules,If it works for them it won't change,when it does't they make a change.Remember it was once written down (For the People by the People)still sounds nice. What ever happened to that set of rules,Oh yes HONEST POLITICIANS took over.Wake up people,do a study on how many politicians retire and live ckeck to check,and they only had to work 2-4 yrs.for that check.Something is really wrong.The solution become a lawyer,then you can become an Honest politician,and then you can make the rules.

  • 1997 Posted by colleenbourgeois on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:28PM EDT Report Abuse

    I work for a major utility company and I know first hand that utility bills go up when DSL comes around every year, all the customer's will call into start complaining because they are up watching t.v. much later with the family. The United States did not adopt it to save money, it was to make money by getting people outside, watching baseball games, amusement parks if we look at the history. I personally don't care for daylight savings. If they just pick one or the other, I agree that the change is hard on people. How about the people vote, keep the Government out of this?

  • 1998 Posted by ag392236 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:46PM EDT Report Abuse

    I just thought of something-do these clowns who extended DST realize that their decision to start earlier actually *delayed* the start of Spring?

  • 1999 Posted by xff_xtreme on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:53PM EDT Report Abuse

    Here is what really happened, Exec from energy company get together and decide they want to increase their profit by 10% each year. so they paid $350,000 to a lobbist, and then bribed congress/senate to pass a law that will "actually increase the energy consumptioin". Has anyone actually caculated the additional cost in IT industry to implement the DST changes/fix? and what about the intangible cost of our coporate america missing their appointments/conference calls because of DST? It raises our energy consumption, lowers our productivity? while energy company rake in huge profits? Say NO to DST!

  • 2000 Posted by jmcdowell0116 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:37PM EDT Report Abuse

    To those who would like DST year round, come to West Michigan. If we stayed on DST year round we would have sunrise at 9 a.m. or later from abour Dec. 4 to Jan 31. As it is, with the new longer DST, I calculated around 80 days a year with 8 a.m. or later sunrises. Just when it sterted to get light at a reasonable hour, the sunrise is back to 8 a.m. on March 8 (2009). Besides not saving any energy, think of the wasted man hours changing clocks, and the reported increase in accidents during the week of the time changes.

More Posts: First Prev … 99 100 101 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.