On 7/16/2026 3:08 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
I feel all these technical difficulties created by the Sunshine Protection Act are dangerous and the Senators who may vote on it are probably mostly unaware if it. It all looks extremely problematic to me. I think every sector of society, including "big tech", should be very concerned about this.
The Senators in 2022 were aware enough of the complications to modify the bill to set an effective date of November 2023 - 20 months after passing the bill. As written the biggest risk is that the Senators of 2026 are not aware of the long lead time that makes these changes smoother. The "permanent standard time" or "Sunshine for Our Kids Act" variant [1] has the clause: "(d) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the first Sunday of November that first occurs after the date of the enactment of this Act."
I do not like the wording of H.R. 139 "as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment". People will not be able to look at just the then current law and know the full story. They will need to reference a repealed section.
I also do not agree with the statements made during the floor debate for H.R. 139. They presented the bill as if any state could opt out of permanent DST. Not just the states that have opted out as of "the day before the date of the enactment". Even the current law giving any state having the option to opt out of seasonal DST is problematic. Indiana opting out (as they did until 2006) or Arizona opting out is a different result on the national map than if New Jersey or Missouri exercised their legal right under current law to stop observing DST.
Theoretically California could opt out of DST before enactment and keep the current Pacific Standard Time. But under the current proposal they would need to opt out by the day before H.R. 139 becomes law.
If California waits until after H.R. 139 becomes law the state could petition the DOT to move to Alaska standard time - for the convenience of commerce. But I doubt that request would be approved.
The Senate at least needs to modify the bill to add an effective date in 2027 - and any other cleanup that the House would approve when the changes are returned to the house. Simple approval as written would be bad.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9638/text
