Wednesday, May 30, 2001

As you may have heard, a state legislator, one Rep. William Greene (D-Billerica), has filed a bill that would put Massachusetts on daylight-saving time year-round. The move's an effort to save energy and let people enjoy more evening sunlight.

Sure, it sounds great, but before our public servants make any big decisions, I want details nailed down:

• The TV schedule: Would Bostonians see ``Survivor Africa'' earlier than New Yorkers do (ha! ha!)? Or, more darkly, would CBS continue to broadcast the program just once on the East Coast, meaning it would run at 8 in Manhattan, and 9 in Boston?

• Verizon's pricing structure: If a friend from Washington, D.C., calls my cell phone at 7:15 a.m. her time, but my 8:15 a.m. my time, what kind of minutes would that cost me? Peak? Or Nights and Weekend?

• Grace period for parking meters: How long after we don't ``fall back'' in October will Bostonians be able to get away with not paying for the first hour on the meter? Rita, I thought it was only 7 a.m. I want a permissive parking period, much like the phone company offers after it introduces a new area code.

  I realize that a shift to year-round daylight-saving time might reduce electricity bills, but it comes with other costs. If the bill becomes law, Bay State citizens who lost an hour of sleep last April would not be able to recoup it in October.

  Mr. Greene obviously doesn't value his time, but mine is precious. If I'm giving up an hour, I want to be paid for it: at time-and-a-half. Plus interest.

  As you may know, the United States first enacted daylight-saving time during World War I to save energy. The idea was that people would be outside enjoying themselves, not at home, consuming power.

  Far be it from me to bash the Even Greater than the Greatest Generation, but there wasn't a heck of a lot to do inside back then after dark. There was no cable, and Internet connections were notoriously slow.

  Daylight-saving time has been extended year-round before, first during World War II, and then again in 1973, during the Arab oil embargo.

  Helloooo. Does anyone remember the '70s? We've seen what throwing off sleep schedules does to the hair and clothing of a nation.

  Meanwhile, in response to California's current energy crisis, Congress is considering legislation to expand daylight-saving time there, and similar proposals are being debated in several other state Legislatures.

  But what if we end up as the only state to go all savings all the time? As our speech and driving styles demonstrate, we're already out of sync with the rest of the country. Why make us even less compatible?

  Worse than the whole state going nonstop daylight would be if we're split. Cambridge on one time, Southie on another. We'd be like Vevay, Ind., where half the town recognizes daylight-saving time and the other doesn't. There, the post office is an hour ahead of the bank next door, which means you can mail a bill at 1 p.m. and deposit funds to cover it at 12:05.

  And not only that, some workers get home earlier than they leave their offices.

  Additionally, to clarify which ``8 p.m.'' or ``7:30 a.m.'' is under discussion, Vevayians refer to ``fast time'' and ``slow time,'' as in, ``We start serving dinner at 9, slow time.''

  As you can imagine, it all gets pretty confusing. Which, as anyone who has driven locally knows, is the last thing we need around here.