In recent years, New York lawmakers have actively pursued legislation to eliminate the practice of Daylight Saving Time (DST), advocating for a permanent shift to Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). This initiative aims to address various concerns, including health implications, economic benefits, and the desire for consistent timekeeping throughout the year.
Background on Daylight Saving Time
Daylight Saving Time, first introduced during World War I, involves advancing clocks by one hour in the spring to extend evening daylight and reverting to standard time in the fall. While intended to conserve energy and provide longer daylight hours, the practice has faced criticism over its impact on health, safety, and daily routines.
New York’s Legislative Efforts
New York’s pursuit of permanent DST dates back to at least 2020. In November of that year, State Senator Joseph Griffo introduced legislation (S3813) proposing that New York adopt permanent DST. This bill was designed to take effect contingent upon neighboring states and the federal government enacting similar legislation, as federal law currently requires uniform time observance across states.
Senator Griffo’s advocacy continued in 2021, with the introduction of the same bill, emphasizing the potential benefits of permanent DST, including improved public safety, economic stimulation, and reduced health risks associated with the biannual time changes.
In 2022, Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara joined Senator Griffo in sponsoring companion legislation (A6443) in the Assembly. Both legislators highlighted studies indicating that permanent DST could lead to energy savings, reductions in crime and traffic accidents, and increased economic activity.
Regional Coordination Efforts
Recognizing the need for regional coordination, Senator Griffo reached out to legislators in neighboring states to solicit interest in introducing similar bills. States such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania responded positively, introducing legislation mirroring New York’s proposal. Additionally, discussions extended to Canadian provinces, with officials expressing a willingness to consider making DST permanent.
Federal Considerations
While states can propose legislation to adopt permanent DST, federal law governs time observance to ensure uniformity across state lines. As of March 2025, Congress has not passed legislation permitting states to implement year-round DST independently. However, the ongoing efforts at the state level have kept the issue on the national agenda, with discussions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of permanent DST continuing in legislative chambers.
Health and Safety Implications
Proponents of permanent DST argue that eliminating the biannual clock changes would mitigate adverse health effects, such as sleep disturbances leading to mental and physical fatigue. They also suggest that permanent DST would benefit outdoor workers, particularly in construction, by providing consistent morning daylight, thereby enhancing safety during early work hours.
Economic and Social Impacts
Beyond health and safety, the debate over DST has economic and social dimensions. Proponents of permanent DST argue that the additional evening daylight could boost consumer activities, particularly in retail and recreational sectors, by encouraging people to spend more time outdoors and engage in leisure activities after work. However, industries reliant on morning daylight, such as agriculture, express concerns that permanent DST would disrupt traditional work patterns and affect productivity.
Educational institutions also face challenges in this debate. Later sunrises under permanent DST could impact school start times and student well-being, as children would be commuting in darker conditions during the early morning hours. This consideration adds complexity to the discussions, as policymakers strive to balance the interests of various stakeholders.
Conclusion
The movement to end Daylight Saving Time in New York reflects a growing sentiment that the biannual clock changes are more disruptive than beneficial. As the state legislature continues to consider bills like S3813 and A6443, it must weigh the health, safety, economic, and social implications of such a change. This decision will not only affect daily routines but also contribute to the ongoing national conversation about the relevance and impact of DST in modern society.
Disclaimer – Our editorial team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and eliminate any potential misinformation. We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity in our content.