Oregon senators have rejected a bill that would make Oregon the only state on the West Coast to switch permanently to standard time.
In a 15-15 vote Tuesday, Senate Bill 1548 became the rare bill to fail on the chamber floor. It went down after lawmakers in both parties raised concerns that Oregon would be going it alone, creating confusion for people who travel frequently to and from neighboring states.
The result means that Oregon, like Washington, is unlikely to take action on ending daylight saving time this year.
The idea isn鈥檛 completely dead, however. SB 1548 supporters will try to put an amended version back before the Senate, they said. The altered bill would ensure Oregon does not change its time standard without other neighboring states doing the same.
Lawmakers have demonstrated for years they want the state to 鈥渄itch the switch,鈥� ending the twice-yearly time changes that have been linked to increased instances of heart problems and negative mental health impacts.
In 2019, the Legislature approved a bill that would have kept the state permanently on daylight savings time, a move requiring Congressional approval that never came.
Leaving the state on standard time is a far simpler change, requiring only that lawmakers and Gov. Tina Kotek agree. Hawaii, much of Arizona, and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico and Guam already operate on the system.
鈥淚f and when the federal government ever decides to entertain daylight saving time again, we can look back at that and reconsider,鈥� said Sen. Kim Thatcher, a Keizer Republican who introduced SB 1548, and argued Oregon could set an example for its neighbors. 鈥淔or now, we have that ability, we have that power to step out on this issue.鈥�
Thatcher said she鈥檚 been working with lawmakers in other West Coast states, but right now California and Washington aren鈥檛 moving. A bill to adopt permanent standard time in Washington appears dead in the current legislative session, and a proposal in California hasn鈥檛 been scheduled for a hearing.
That created the possibility that border-area residents who commute into or out of Oregon would have their on any given day.
鈥淭hat really has the potential to be very disruptive,鈥� said Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland who opposed the bill. 鈥淚 understand and sympathize with the鈥� goal of setting a precedent for the other states to follow, but I鈥檓 not sure that what Oregon does is necessarily in and of itself going to drive those other states to take action.鈥�
Sen. Bill Hansell, R-Athena, represents a wide swath of northeastern Oregon, and said he鈥檇 heard worries from constituents who frequently cross the border into Washington.
鈥淚 just am going to have to follow what I鈥檓 hearing from my constituents and be a no vote even though I would like to move in this direction,鈥� Hansell said.
Fans of the bill responded that any confusion it created would be temporary. 鈥淚n this age of remote work, many of us on an ongoing basis are constantly dealing with businesses and other people in time zones that are not the same as ours,鈥� said Sen. Elizabeth Steiner, D-Portland. 鈥淲e know how to do this.鈥�
A family physician, Steiner argued that switching to daylight saving time each year poses unnecessary health hazards.
鈥淲hen our time clock is not aligned with the sun, it is bad for mental health,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t increases risk of depression. It is bad for heart disease. We see a significant exacerbation in heart attacks.鈥�
The notion of changing the state鈥檚 time standard inevitably stirs up a heated debate in Salem, as fans of either standard or daylight time rush forward with research they believe makes their case.
Supporters of sticking with daylight saving time all year round鈥� meaning darker mornings but light extending further into the evening 鈥� cite that suggests the change would save lives by cutting down on traffic fatalities during the evening commute. They also argue more light at night reduces crime,with deer and that it would be a waste to have the sun rising before 5 a.m. during summer months. In Portland, a switch to permanent standard time would result in the sun rising as early as 4:21 a.m. in June.
鈥淭he entire point of DST is to push daylight into the portion of the day when the vast majority of the public is awake, moving about town, and can enjoy the benefits of light vs. the dangers of darkness,鈥� said Steve Calandrillo, a law professor at the University of Washington who has argued for clocks to remain on daylight savings time year-round. 鈥淭hose benefits do not accrue if we move to permanent standard time.鈥�
But advocates for standard time are 鈥� so much so that there is solely to touting the benefits of sticking with what its fans sometimes call 鈥渘atural time鈥� or 鈥淕od鈥檚 time.鈥� This camp emphasizes that standard time more closely syncs with the body鈥檚 natural clock, an argument that is .
The broad benefits promised by fans of standard time include improved 鈥渋mmunity, longevity, mood, alertness, and performance in school, sports, and work.鈥� They point out that permanent daylight saving time could result in sunrise later than 8 a. m. during winter months 鈥� 8:50 a.m. in Portland.
鈥淢oving clocks to DST acutely deprives sleep; leaving clocks on DST chronically deprives sleep,鈥� Jay Pea, president of the group Save Standard Time, wrote in testimony submitted in support of Thatcher鈥檚 bill. 鈥淒ST鈥檚 delayed sunrise significantly increases accidents, disease, and health care costs. It significantly decreases learning, productivity, and earnings.鈥�
Many people do seem to agree that the twice-annual changing of the clock needs to end. But not everyone.
Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, said on the Senate floor that she鈥檇 concluded that falling back and springing forward are necessary evils, since Oregon鈥檚 northerly position on the globe ensures that sunrise will either come unreasonably early or unreasonably late without them.
鈥淭he real issue is that we are geographically in a place where, as inconvenient as it is, it probably makes sense that we change our clock twice a year,鈥� Gelser Blouin said.
