Do You Hate the Time Change? This Denverite Is Lobbying Congress to Get Rid of It.

Scott Yates is one of the country’s leading activists working to stop the twice-yearly time change—but if you ask him, his work is just a hobby. About a decade ago, the Denverite found himself annoyed with the spring-forward and fall-back routine. But it wasn’t until Yates did some digging around online—and discovered how the time change can negatively affect adolescents’ education, transportation, and health—that he started a blog to explain how clock-hopping is more than just an inconvenience.

Since then, Yates has helped 24 states pass legislation to adopt a permanent time. Colorado approved a bill establishing permanent daylight saving time (DST) in 2022, but in order to take effect, the federal government must approve it and four other states in the Mountain time zone have to join in. Proponents of permanent DST argue that it can reduce crime, lower pedestrian accident rates, and even influence people to exercise more. But fans of standard time say it can improve our sleep, reduce energy costs, and allow early commuters to travel in sunlight.

Despite the never-ending debate about whether standard time or DST is better, Yates doesn’t actually care which we choose. Instead, he advocates that states should pick a permanent time and stick with it. Studies show that changing our clocks twice a year can be harmful to the environment, increase car accidents, and may even increase rates of heart attacks. Federally, the Sunshine Protection Act (which would make DST permanent for all states) has been making the rounds in Congress since 2021 but has failed every time it’s been introduced. The latest version, which was introduced in January, hasn’t made any progress yet.

Yates wants that to change. On Thursday, he testified at a federal hearing for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation led by Senator Ted Cruz. While nothing concrete happened at the hearing, Yates hopes that this is the first step toward locking the clock for good. On Friday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social in support of permanent DST: “The House and Senate should push hard for more Daylight at the end of a day. Very popular and, most importantly, no more changing of the clocks, a big inconvenience and, for our government, A VERY COSTLY EVENT!!!”

In advance of the hearing, 5280 caught up with Yates to learn more about what this means for the time-change debate.

Editor’s note: The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

5280: You’ve described your passion for locking the clock as a hobby. Why?
Scott Yates: I’ve never made money off of this work. Actually, I’ve lost money. Not a ridiculous amount, but like how people that play golf spend money on golf. I paid for my own ticket to come to D.C. and my own accommodations. Back when I started this work in 2016, nobody was doing anything to fix it, so I just started by blogging about it. That blog got traction, and suddenly I had legislators contacting me asking for help to get something passed. Then that grew into working with people in Washington, D.C., and I feel like it’s all culminating at the federal hearing.

What are you proposing to the committee at the hearing?
I’m advocating that we lock the clock into permanent DST in 2027 but allow states to opt out and remain in standard time if they wish to do so. That implementation period of two years is important because it gives states time to figure it out. People have really strong opinions about if we should be in standard time or DST. Those two years give states time to have that discussion.

Why do you think states need time to make that decision?
For most states, it’s pretty cut and dry. In Nebraska, for instance, there are parts of the state where the sun wouldn’t be coming up until around 9 a.m. if they were on DST. And it’s not up to me to decide if Nebraska wants that; it’s for the people who live there to decide. Under current law, any state can opt out of the time change and stay in permanent standard time, like Arizona and Hawaii. But no other states have wanted to do that since 1966. But 24 states have passed something indicating that they want to stay in DST. For Colorado, since we’re on the eastern edge of the Mountain time zone, it would make a lot of sense to stay in DST. But states like Nebraska would need time to have hearings and elections and opt out before any laws go into effect.

Do you think this hearing will actually accomplish anything?
There’s not going to be some big resounding thing that happens at the hearing, like a bill gets passed or anything. What I am hoping for is that the conversation gets moved forward another step. People used to never talk about this; it was just accepted that we change the clocks twice a year. And then we realized that we could actually do something about this, and now 24 states have passed bills wanting to stay in DST. I feel like I’m almost singlehandedly responsible for people realizing that the time change is a health issue. Before 2016, nobody talked about that. And then I started writing blog posts citing journal articles about the health problems, and that picked up traction, and now people talk about it as a health issue. That’s why now, I want people to pick up on my two-year waiting period idea. If everyone in Washington, D.C., starts talking about that, I’ll consider the hearing a success. I don’t know if my new idea will take off in the same way, but I hope it does.

Read more: Why Stopping the Time Change Might Actually Be Good for Us

A full recording of the hearing, titled “If I Could Turn Back Time: Should We Lock The Clock?” can be found on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation website.