No need to stress about early daylight saving

John W. Schoen Senior producer • Profile • E-mail

Despite dire warnings that electronic clocks gone wild could cost businesses hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s unlikely you'll see any serious impact from the earlier-than-usual switchover to daylight savings time this weekend.

But it's also likely that the energy savings that were the supposed reason for all the confusion will be minimal. In fact, Americans could end up expending more energy driving to shopping malls to take advantage of the extra hour of daylight.

“The general feeling is that it's an inconvenience at worst for most enterprises — involving mainly an issue of installing patches,” said Michael Shirer, a spokesman for IDC, a technology research and consulting firm. Industries potentially most affected are those whose businesses rely heavily on accurate timekeeping, including financial services, telecom and utilities, he said.

Meanwhile, although estimates are hard to come by, it turns out that the energy savings that were supposed to be achieved will likely be minimal. By extending daylight saving by three weeks in the spring and another week in the fall, the intent was to cut power consumption by providing an extra hour of sunlight, delaying the hour when electric lights are switched on. But a 2001 study by the California Department of Energy found that the energy conservation from the annual switch to daylight saving was marginal.

Assuming everyone keeps to the same schedule, the study said, extending daylight savings would reduce peak power use by 2 to 5 percent in the evening, but morning use would rise by almost the same amount. The net effect, the study found, was savings “on the order of one half of one percent, but savings could just as well be zero.” The analysis found a one in four chance of a very small increase in net power consumption.

To be sure, if left unfixed, out-of-sync computers could throw sand in the gears of commerce. Financial transactions booked early could carry the wrong date. Services with different peak and off-peak rates could generate erroneous bills. Out-of-whack airline and trucking schedules could result in delays or missed connections. From utility meters and factory time card systems to automated locks and heating systems, the cost of faulty electronic timekeeping could add up quickly.

Though some businesses may have paid incremental costs to tweak their systems, the earlier time shift could boost the bottom lines of others. Candy makers, seeing the opportunity for a sweeter Halloween with an extra hour of daylight, were among those that lobbied for the change. Retailers and theme parks could enjoy extra after-work traffic. Insurance companies could see fewer claims if the added safety of daylight reduces traffic accidents. Golf courses may squeeze in a few extra evening tee times, and barbecue equipment makers could see sales pick up earlier in the season. (A lot, of course, depends on whether the late March weather behaves like a lion or a lamb.)

But U.S. businesses have been coping with the time switchover since daylight savings was first established as a voluntary program under the Uniform Time Act of 1966. And this year, businesses seem to have everything under control.

At Duke Energy, one of the largest power producers in the U.S., the annual switch to daylight saving time has always involved having staff on site to make sure everything goes smoothly, according to company spokesman Tom Shiel.

“We’ve simulated the time change to test our systems, and everything checked out,” he said, adding that very little expense was involved.

The current anxiety about the risk of widespread computer clock confusion can be traced to an act of Congress. In the final stages of writing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a package that included billions in subsidies for oil and gas producers, utility companies and ethanol makers, the bill’s proponents were looking to placate supporters of conservation, which critics said had been largely overlooked.

Among other measures, a provision was included ordering an earlier start to daylight savings time, in hopes of squeezing a little more energy savings out of the seasonal lengthening of sunlight hours in summer -- without adding to the law’s swollen $12 billion price tag. At the time, energy conservation advocates pointed out that the potential energy savings of the move were trivial compared to provisions they had championed, like increased fuel efficiency standards for cars, home appliances and industrial power equipment.

The law was enacted, and the extension of daylight savings was ordered. Unfortunately, millions of computerized timekeepers — already programmed to make the switch on the old date — would have to be tweaked.

MORE FROM EYE ON THE ECONOMY

Eye on the Economy Section Front

'Problem' banks at highest level in 16 years RV industry no longer running on empty Long-term unemployed face dwindling options  Obama warns of 'double-dip recession' One in four metro areas in recovery mode Geithner warns lack of loans may slow recovery Of bats and billions: Following stimulus funds As stimulus funds trickle down, debate heats up Commercial real estate bust looms NYT: Ex-homeowners forced into shelters Eye on the Economy Section Front   Add Eye on the Economy headlines to your news reader: