Permanent daylight saving time: An idea whose time has not come again

Minnesotans' willingness to give permanent daylight saving time a try back in the 1970s was understandable.

Consumers were reeling from that era's steep inflation. Energy prices were particularly painful, with oil shortages the fallout from Middle East producers flexing their might.

No wonder 68% of those surveyed in a Minnesota Poll published Dec. 2, 1973, said they favored a shift to year-round daylight saving time (DST). If a simple clock adjustment could reduce energy demand and yield savings, why not give it a try? That same rationale led the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to leave clocks one hour ahead year-round beginning in early 1974.

Three months after this shift, Minnesotans had had a major change of heart. In a Minnesota Poll published March 20, 1974, 58% of those surveyed said they preferred standard time during the winter.

That historical reality should throw cold water on ill-informed modern-day proposals for a permanent DST shift.

If it didn't work in 1974, it's unclear why it would work now.

Yet there are bills with broad bipartisan support at the state and federal levels to make this switch again. One of them, the "Sunshine Protection Act," cleared the U.S. Senate with little debate but unanimous consent on March 15. It would make DST permanent beginning in 2023.

At the Minnesota Legislature, there are bills, SF 149 and HF 72, calling for this as well. Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, has long been a champion of ending the current "spring forward, fall back" clock shift. A companion bill in the House has a list of authors that includes prominent DFLers and fiery conservatives.

The state legislation, if passed, would be dependent on a congressional approval, which is sensible. Things would get confusing if Minnesota made this switch but other states did not.

Kiffmeyer's clock-flipping complaints are legitimate. The changes, as she said in a statement, are linked to a "statistical rise in car crashes, days missed from work, heart attacks and workplace injuries immediately surrounding the change. These issues emerge as a result of the sleep disruption and a chaotic transition."

Ending the twice-a-year clock change merits serious consideration. But the state and federal bills go beyond that to make DST permanent. That would be a mistake. If there is a shift, it should be to standard time.

The Star Tribune's archives help explain why. The 1974 change went into effect on Jan. 6 that year, trading darker mornings for afternoon daylight. On that day, the time change meant the sun rose in Minnesota around 8:50 a.m.

By Jan. 16, the Star Tribune was reporting two accidents that may have been linked to the unaccustomed morning darkness. In Duluth, a 3-year-old boy died when he and his mom were struck returning from a bus stop. In Austin, a car hit a crossing guard and two elementary students.

Parents were advised to add reflective materials to kids' coats. Local leaders called for later school start times to protect kids. Reports released nationally suggested energy savings were minimal. Not surprisingly, broad regret settled in. In October 1974, then-President Gerald Ford signed legislation undoing the change.

As the current Congress weighs DST 2.0, health experts are speaking out. If there is a permanent change, standard time is the clear choice. It provides more early daylight and most closely aligns with the body's natural wake-work-sleep rhythms. Misalignment has been linked to "increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,'' according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

Simply put, "It's better to have light in the mornings than the evenings," said Dr. Conrad Iber, a sleep medicine physician at University of Minnesota Medical School and M Health Fairview.

It's unclear why there's momentum this year behind the federal DST shift. A change that affects so many requires thoughtful consideration and solid evidence to justify it.

So far, both are in short supply. A pause, at the very least, is timely and necessary.