The dark side of making daylight saving time permanent in California: How late would our sunrises get? 21%

By Rong-Gong Lin II49%

7/22/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Emotion, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 17.4% saturation with 197 hits. Analysis detected 1,211 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,133 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.7% and a BS Rank of 21% (17,479 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.90% of the article peer group.

The move by lawmakers to make daylight saving time permanent has a dark side  sunless winter mornings. 
But just how late would the new legislation push sunrise in California? 
Were Congress to adopt permanent daylight saving time year-round, eliminating the need to change the clocks twice a year, Los Angeles would see its latest sunrise of the year at 8 a.m. 
Sacramento would see sunrise as late as 8:24 a.m., and San Francisco, 8:25 a.m. 
Crescent City, on the northwestern tip of California? 
A sunrise of 8:44 a.m. 
Other parts of the country would also see sunrises in the winter that would have children who start school at 8 a.m. possibly going to campus in the dark. 
With permanent daylight saving time, the latest sunrise for Miami would be 8:09 a.m.; Boston, 8:13 a.m.; Chicago and Houston, 8:18 a.m.; New York City, 8:20 a.m.; Philadelphia, 8:23 a.m.; Washington, 8:27 a.m.; Dallas, 8:30 a.m.; Atlanta, 8:43 a.m.; Minneapolis, 8:51 a.m.; Seattle, 8:58 a.m.; and Detroit, 9:02 a.m. 
Some areas would see an even later sunrise. 
The capital of North Dakota, Bismarck, and Glacier National Park in Montana would see a sunrise of 9:28 a.m. 
Surrendering an hour of sunlight in the morning, of course, means getting it back in the evenings. 
The benefit of year-round daylight saving time would be 5:44 p.m. sunsets shortly after Thanksgiving for Los Angeles  a delight for Angelenos unhappy with 4:44 p.m. sunsets as winter approaches. 
San Francisco would see its earliest sunsets at 5:51 p.m. in late November and early December, where it's now 4:51 p.m. on standard time. 
New York City would see its earliest sunset at 5:28 p.m. on year-round daylight saving time, instead of 4:28 p.m. 
The debate over permanent daylight saving time is an old one but has been reinvigorated with the House of Representatives' vote last week, a bipartisan 308 to 117, for a measure to make year-round daylight saving time the default for much of the nation. 
Areas that already do not observe daylight saving time  such as Arizona and Hawaii  would be able to stay on permanent standard time. 
The bill's sponsor in the Senate, Sen. 
Rick Scott (R-Fla.), called changing clocks twice a year an unnecessary annoyance. 
“I hear from Americans constantly that they are sick and tired of changing their clocks twice a year  it’s an unnecessary, decades-old practice that’s more of an annoyance to families," Scott said in a statement. 
"Even just an extra hour in the evening means more time to play with your kids." 
It's an idea that has come up before. 
What was called winter daylight saving time was briefly enacted in 1974. 
But it became unpopular, and Congress returned to standard time later that year. 
"Daylight saving time is generally popular with the public, but not in the winter months of November through February," a House report said in 1974. 
Among the concerns were that schools had to delay the start of classes "because of the problems of dark mornings." 
The Los Angeles Times reported in 1974 that crossing guards at many L.A. 
County schools had to be issued flashlights to help children on their way to school. 
Of the 51 current members of the House from California  there is one vacancy  42 backed year-round daylight saving time, namely, 33 Democrats, all eight Republicans and one independent. 
Of the nine who opposed the measure, all were Democrats  Nanette Diaz Barragán, Judy Chu, Mark DeSaulnier, Jimmy Gomez, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Sam Liccardo, Ted Lieu, Zoe Lofgren and Mark Takano. 
It's not clear, however, that there's enough support in the Senate for the measure to pass. 
Sen. 
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has expressed opposition to fiddling with the current system. 
"By moving the clock back an hour in winter, permanent daylight savings time would push winter sunrises to an absurdly late hour, depriving Americans of morning sunshine that’s essential for our safety and well-being," Cotton said last year. 
He said he would oppose any effort to adopt daylight saving year-round. 
Under the House-approved bill, lawmakers in California and other states could opt out of making daylight saving time permanent but would need to decide before the law took effect. 
In 2018, California voters approved Proposition 7, which gave the Legislature the authority to impose year-round daylight saving time  but only if the federal government allowed states to do so. 
Current federal law prohibits states from implementing year-round daylight saving time. 
Proposition 7 passed with a substantial majority, with 60% voting in favor of the proposal. 
“Americans are sick of falling back and springing forward. 
More daylight after work means more business and more active, safer California communities," Sen. 
Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement last year. 
"Californians already voted years ago to lock the clock  and it’s past time for Congress to do the same.” 
President Trump has said he would sign permanent daylight saving time into law if passed by Congress. 
One place that recently adopted permanent daylight saving time is British Columbia. 
The Canadian province said that it was permanently moving to year-round daylight saving time in March and would not turn back the clocks to standard time in November. 
As a result, Vancouver's latest sunrise will be at 9:07 a.m., but in return, its earliest sunset will be at 5:13 p.m. instead of 4:13 p.m. 
An alternate idea would be to keep California on permanent standard time, which is allowed under federal law. 
But that would mean saying farewell to daylight during California's late summer days. 
This year, thanks to daylight saving time, Los Angeles is seeing sunsets at 8 p.m. or later from June 1 to July 25. 
Permanent standard time would make it so Los Angeles' latest sunset of the year would be at 7:09 p.m. 
In San Francisco this year, sunsets at 8 p.m. or later occur from May 1 through Aug. 
17. 
Permanent standard time would make San Francisco's latest sunset of the year at 7:36 p.m. 
Mexico ended daylight saving time in 2022 in most of the country, choosing to remain with standard time for the entire year. 
But some border cities, as well as Baja California, observe daylight saving time. 
Areas of the world where daylight saving time is most common is North America and Europe. 
But the practice of switching clocks twice a year is uncommon elsewhere across the world, according to the Pew Research Center. 
In 2018, there was a proposal for the European Union to end the practice of changing clocks twice a year to switch between standard time and daylight saving time. 
No final decision has been made. 
Times staff writer Iris Kwok contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 17.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias17.4%This article: 4.9%Rong-Gong Lin II: 6.4%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic4.9%This article: 1.9%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic1.9%This article: 1.1%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.1%This article: 1.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 5.8%Rong-Gong Lin II: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect5.8%This article: 3.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion3.4%This article: 1.8%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias1.2%This article: 3.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 4.9%Rong-Gong Lin II: 9.9%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias4.9%This article: 2.7%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 2.7%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Rong-Gong Lin II: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope3.4%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 7.3%Rong-Gong Lin II: 4.5%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 1.8%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question1.8%This article: 1.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.2%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.3%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal8.3%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.9%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice12.9%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1133 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers17%attributed speech939writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRick Scott • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRick Scott • 36 words • 100.0% coverageRick Scott • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageHouse report • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 38 words • 100.0% coverageTom Cotton • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Padilla • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Padilla • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Padilla • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tom Cotton

61%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words32% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice+49.8 ptsWriter: 11.5%Tom Cotton: 61.3%61.3%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.