Well, I'm with Arizona on this one. Lighting is not a significant energy consumer, and no matter what the clocks say, or when it gets light or dark outside, we still use our appliances. We shower, do laundry, cook, heat or air condition the same, so I guess I'm not sold on the supposed reasoning behind fiddling with the clocks. I know it's been controversial since it's inception.
Studies for and against abound:
In 1976 the National Bureau of Standards disputed the 1975 DOTs study and found the energy savings to be insignificant.
The DOTs study still influences decisions about DST.
"The argument in favor of saving energy swayed Indiana, where until 2005, only about 16 percent of counties observed Daylight Saving Time. Based on the DOT study, advocates of Indiana DST estimated that the states residents would save over $7 million in electricity costs each year. Now that Indiana has made the switch, however, researchers have found the opposite to be the case. Scientists from the University of California, Santa Barbara, compared energy usage over the course of three years in Indiana counties that switched from year-round Standard Time to DST. They found that Indianans actually spent $8.6 million more each year because of Daylight Saving Time, and increased emissions came with a social cost of between $1.6 million and $5.3 million per year."
And I often wonder, who is it that gets to decide the dates for this disruption? In recent years it's been pushed back to begin earlier
and has been held later into the fall.
But I'm a morning person, and like to get up with the light, so in the summer when it's light around 4:30 I will be outside getting chores done before I have to get on with my work-for-money day.
I do find it a little aggravating in the evenings to have to wait for the chickens to go to bed so that I can lock them up before I hit the hay.