SALEM, Ore. — This week, a bill that would see Oregon ditch the annual switch to daylight saving time narrowly survived being voted down in the Senate, setting it up for a potential comeback. The proposal to adopt permanent standard time is a departure from the legislature's efforts in previous years, which favored permanent daylight saving time.
The Oregon Legislature passed a bill back in 2019 that would move the state to permanent daylight saving time, and Washington passed its own version of the bill. But neither state actually made the transition, and conditions in Oregon's bill meant that it need to wait on the California Legislature to follow suit. They never did.
So, if Oregon lawmakers supported permanent daylight saving time before, why are they now favoring a switch to permanent standard time?
The path of least resistance
One reason that underpins the whole effort is probably the simplest — switching to permanent standard time is easier than the alternative. Whatever California decided, all three West Coast states would need Congress to sign off on the switch to permanent DST, a feature of federal law.
Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966, establishing the annual switch to daylight saving nationwide — something Oregon had already adopted a few years earlier. Under the law, states can choose to observe daylight saving time, but they have to "spring forward" and "fall back" uniformly on the same days each year as every other state.
But the federal law does not preclude states from sticking with standard time year-round, which Arizona has done since 1968. Adopting standard time is as simple as passing a state law.
"Under the Uniform Time Act, States may choose to exempt themselves from observing Daylight Saving Time by State law," the U.S. Department of Transportation says in its overview of Uniform Time. "States do not have the authority to choose to be on permanent Daylight Saving Time."
Getting a switch to permanent daylight saving time through Congress was always going to be an uphill battle, if only because of the sheer ambivalence that most federal lawmakers seem to exhibit about the merits of standard time, the annual switch to daylight saving time, or permanent DST.
After Florida passed a bill to adopt permanent daylight saving time, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to make DST permanent for all states. It didn't go anywhere, which has been the story for similar time-based legislation ever since.
Weighing the merits
Of course, plenty of people will argue that one system is better than the others — there are benefits and drawbacks to each. The annual time change helps to better track daylight hours throughout the year, while permanent DST would make for more sunlight in the evenings. Permanent standard time introduces more sunlight in the mornings.
To illustrate what that would mean, let's look at Oregon's longest and shortest days in 2024. On June 20, the longest day, the sun will rise at 5:22 a.m. and set at 9:03 p.m. But keep in mind that this is with the current switch to daylight saving time — if it were standard time, the sun would rise at 4:22 a.m. and set at 8:03 p.m.
The shortest day, Dec. 21, will remain the same under permanent standard time: sunrise at 7:48 a.m. and sunset at 4:30 p.m. On permanent DST, that would instead be sunrise at 8:48 a.m. and sunset at 5:30 p.m.
Based on polling, if there's one thing that people agree on, it's that they don't like switching clocks twice a year; it's easy to get people on a bandwagon to abandon the daylight-saving switch.
But is there a reason to favor permanent standard time over permanent DST? And is there a reason to abandon the switch, or is it just unpopular?
As lawmakers took testimony on Senate Bill 1548, the current bill that would establish permanent standard time, representatives of an Arizona-based group called Save Standard Time argued that the earlier push for permanent daylight saving time was based off misinterpreted evidence, and that permanent standard time is supported by sleep experts.
"It fairly balances light across the morning and the evening to fit all lifestyles, and it's supported by history as the most sustainable way — as in the most lasting popularity for ending clock change," said Jay Pea, president of Save Standard Time.
"(Permanent standard time is) shown by science to be the healthiest and safest way for commuters, for people who need to work outdoors like farmers or construction, for children learning in school and for productivity in the workplace," he continued. "This is the wide consensus of dozens of nonprofits. There might be one or few detractors who might pick out one or two studies, but really, there are hundreds of studies showing that permanent standard time is the better way to go."
Most of the testimonial statements on SB 1548 came in support of the bill. But it wasn't without opposition. University of Washington professor Steven Calandrillo argued for permanent DST, pointing to safety concerns that arise from earlier sunsets.
"That evening rush hour kills three times as many people as the morning rush hour because there's more people on the road," he said. "There are more kids enjoying outdoor unsupervised play; there is more alcohol in people's bloodstreams (and) people are rushing to get home. By pushing daylight into the evening hours, we can actually dramatically reduce the number of fatalities on roads."
There is a decent body of research showing negative effects from changing clocks each year, although it's not always clear how extensive those impacts might be. Studies have demonstrated disruptions to sleep schedules that can exacerbate existing health problems, including heart conditions. The start of daylight saving time is also associated with a brief spike in car crashes.
While many studies examine the impact of losing sleep from daylight saving time, fewer attempt to compare permanent standard to permanent DST. That said, a number of medical experts and professional groups like the American Medical Association favor the former, arguing that it's better aligned with the natural human "body clock."
What does the bill sponsor say?
Sen. Kim Thatcher, chief sponsor of SB 1548, is relatively blunt about her reasoning for support of permanent standard time: whatever the merits, it's just easier to accomplish. The point is to stop changing clocks.
Thatcher actually sponsored the 2019 bill, SB 320, that would have put Oregon on permanent daylight standard time.
"We’ve now waited five years for approval to implement SB 320, but even though there was high interest in 2019 on the federal level to move to DST year round, there is little to none at this point in time," Thatcher said in a statement. "Federal approval of permanent DST doesn’t look like it will happen anytime soon, if ever."
The lawmaker said that she's still getting requests to pick a time and stay there, and over time, the consensus in those requests has shifted toward favoring permanent standard time.
"We all know we are not going to make everyone happy," Thatcher said. "Given responses from Oregonians in both submitted testimony and email, 76% will be happy, 24% will not — or don’t care. Although I, too, enjoy the later light in the evenings, permanent DST is just not going to happen anytime soon, if ever."
She highlighted the fact that the entire U.S. briefly adopted permanent daylight saving time after President Richard Nixon signed a law passed in 1974. It was supposed to last for at least two years, but public opinion swung so hard against the time change that Congress repealed the law in six months.
Thatcher indicated that SB 1548 will likely reemerge from committee with amendments adding a "trigger" to the bill, meaning that Oregon would once more need to wait on Washington and California before officially adopting permanent standard time.
"I suspect the debate throughout the country will continue at a robust pace, just as it has from the very beginning of DST," she added. "Although I was an avid supporter of DST, after hearing testimony from experts for SB 1548, I have changed my mind and support permanent standard time."
Time keeps on ticking
On Thursday, the Oregon Senate Committee on Rules took more testimony on SB 1548. Lawmakers introduced two potential amendments to the bill, both of which would add a "trigger."
The first of the two amendments would ensure that Oregon only adopts permanent standard time if both Washington and California do the same. It also adds a sunset to the bill — if all three states don't make the switch by March 1, 2034, the law would be scrapped and Oregon would keep changing clocks twice a year.
The other amendment is similar, but instead of waiting on Washington and California, it would only need one of them to adopt standard time for Oregon to join in. It otherwise includes the same sunset as the first of the two amendments.
Based on the tenor of the conversation Thursday, it's likely that the first proposal will be more popular with lawmakers. However, no decision or vote was made.
Next up for SB 1548 will be a work session, which has yet to be scheduled.
Whatever the outcome for the bill, permanent standard time is almost certainly not happening this year. Washington's mirror bill recently died in their legislative session, and the earliest they could take it up again would be 2025. In California, a similar bill was referred to committee more than two weeks ago and has not moved since.