Bruce Yandle has as brilliant theory about regulation. Here’s his short explanation:

Durable social regulation evolves when it is demand by both of two distinctly different groups. “Baptists” point to the moral high ground and give vital and vocal endorsement of laudable public benefits promised by a desired regulation. Baptists flourish when their moral message forms a visible foundation for political action. “Bootleggers” are much less visible but not less vital. Bootleggers, who expect to profit from the very regulatory restrictions desired by Baptists, grease the political machinery with some of their expected proceeds. They are simply in it for the money.

The story’s name draws on colorful tales of states’ efforts to regulate alcoholic beverages by banning Sunday sales at legal outlets. Baptists fervently endorsed such actions on moral grounds. Bootleggers tolerated the actions gleefully because their effect was to limit competition.

So what does this have to do with Daylight Savings Time? Simple, the reason the Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended Daylight Savings Time to cover more of the year is a classic situation of Bootleggers and Baptists.

In this case, the Baptists were the people who claimed that extending Daylight Savings Time would save energy. There was little empirical support for this change, but it sounded good. Congressman Ed Markey was one of these Baptists claiming the change would save energy.

Who were the Bootleggers–the people in the background that would benefit from the change? Apparently Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Convenience Stores. Strange but true. For whatever reason they thought they would do better business.

Does the change to extended daylight savings time back up the claims of Mr. Markey and the other environmental proponents of the extension? Of course not. The balance of the evidence now shows that daylight savings times does not save any energy. If anything, it increases energy use. Here’s the summary of studies from Wikipedia:

• The U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) concluded in 1975 that DST might reduce the country’s electricity usage by 1% during March and April,^[7] but the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) reviewed the DOT study in 1976 and found no significant savings.^[21]
• In 2000 when parts of Australia began DST in late winter, overall electricity consumption did not decrease, but the morning peak load and prices increased.^[25]
• In Western Australia during summer 2006–07, DST increased electricity consumption during hotter days and decreased it during cooler days, with consumption rising 0.6% overall.^[26]
• Although a 2007 study estimated that introducing DST to Japan would reduce household lighting energy consumption,^[27] a 2007 simulation estimated that DST would increase overall energy use in Osaka residences by 0.13%, with a 0.02% decrease due to less lighting more than outweighed by a 0.15% increase due to extra cooling; neither study examined non-residential energy use.^[28] DST’s effect on lighting energy use is noticeable mainly in residences.^[7]
• A 2007 study found that the earlier start to DST that year had little or no effect on electricity consumption in California.^[29]
• A 2007 study estimated that winter daylight saving would prevent a 2% increase in average daily electricity consumption in Great Britain.^[30]
• A 2008 study examined billing data in Indiana before and after it adopted DST in 2006, and concluded that DST increased residential electricity consumption by 1% to 4%, primarily due to extra afternoon cooling.^[31]

Several studies have suggested that DST increases motor fuel consumption.^[7] U.S. gasoline demand grew an extra 1% during the newly introduced DST in March 2007.^[32]

What lesson do we learn from the change to extended daylight savings time? 1. Some groups benefit from regulatory changes. 2. When Congress or the President tout easy ways to save energy, they are almost certainly wrong.