By Stephen J. Dubner
Even if you hate daylight saving time, you tell yourself: Hey, I shouldn’t be so selfish, it’s good for the economy, or for the environment, or for farmers, or something. Right?
Even if you hate daylight saving time, you tell yourself: Hey, I shouldn’t be so selfish, it’s good for the economy, or for the environment, or for farmers, or something. Right?
Well, um, perhaps not. Consider a new working paper, “Does Daylight Saving Time Save Energy? Evidence From a Natural Experiment in Indiana,” by Matthew J. Kotchen and Laura E. Grant:
The history of daylight saving time (D.S.T.) has been long and controversial. Throughout its implementation during World Wars I and II, the oil embargo of the 1970’s, consistent practice today, and recent extensions, the primary rationale for D.S.T. has always been to promote energy conservation.
Nevertheless, there is surprisingly little evidence that D.S.T. actually saves energy. This paper takes advantage of a natural experiment in the state of Indiana to provide the first empirical estimates of D.S.T. effects on electricity consumption in the United States since the mid-1970’s.
Focusing on residential electricity demand, we conduct the first-ever study that uses micro-data on households to estimate an overall D.S.T. effect. The dataset consists of more than 7 million observations on monthly billing data for the vast majority of households in southern Indiana for three years.
Our main finding is that — contrary to the policy’s intent — D.S.T. increases residential electricity demand.
Estimates of the overall increase are approximately 1 percent, but we find that the effect is not constant throughout the D.S.T. period. D.S.T. causes the greatest increase in electricity consumption in the fall, when estimates range between 2 and 4 percent.
These findings are consistent with simulation results that point to a tradeoff between reducing demand for lighting and increasing demand for heating and cooling. We estimate a cost of increased electricity bills to Indiana households of $9 million per year. We also estimate social costs of increased pollution emissions that range from $1.7 to $5.5 million per year. Finally, we argue that the effect is likely to be even stronger in other regions of the United States.
On the bright side, if President-elect Obama is looking for some quick hits on energy conservation, here’s one that’s all teed up and ready to go: Kill D.S.T.!
9 comments:
Whether is does or doesnt save energy, is it really neccesary?? I mean it causes such an upset in most peoples schedules and it makes people grumpy! haha but if it is not serving its original purpose than no, I dont think the time change should continue.
Wow, i had no idea it actually used more energy. Even though it seems like D.S.T. is wasting a lot of energy, i still feel like it is a good thing to have. Obviously there is a reason it has been around so long, and getting rid of it could lead to some unseen consequences.
Well that's kind of annoying. I dont really like D.S.T. very much to begin with and now that I know it is actually hurting energy conservation, I really don't like it.
Wow it's surprising to know that D.S.T. contradicts the conservation of energy. Why do we still have it anyways?
I think that even though it uses more energy, it is still necessary because it helps people adjust to meet their needs of daily life.
Well dang, if D.S.T. is that bad lets just say goodbye to it.. It's so annoying we waste so much energy.. ugh!
I can see how D.S.T would effect electricity bills in the fall and winter(less natural light) unlike the months prior to the time set back.Though if its been around this long it good for something.
wow i cannot believe D.S.T! It's bizarre how bad it is!
Wow thats messed up! Why is it necessary to have D.S.T? It is silly to have D.S.T, making everyone struggle to get use to the new time change, getting darker earlier (which makes me feel tired earlier),and now knowing it uses more energy, why have it?
Post a Comment