SCR 7 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution that formally expresses the Legislature’s preference for adopting permanent standard time rather than switching clocks twice a year. The measure is declarative: it compiles findings about health, safety, and economic effects and does not change state law or the official timekeeping rules.
The resolution collects medical and public-health arguments against permanent daylight saving time, highlights groups and jurisdictions that already observe standard time year-round, and urges coordination with nearby states. Because it only states a legislative position, its practical effect is to signal policy priorities to state agencies, school districts, employers, and federal authorities rather than to require any immediate operational changes.
At a Glance
What It Does
SCR 7 is a non-binding concurrent resolution: it assembles a series of "WHEREAS" findings and a short resolving clause that expresses the Legislature’s view on time policy. It does not alter state statutes, change clocks, or create enforceable obligations.
Who It Affects
The resolution targets audiences rather than creating new regulated parties: state and local policymakers, school districts, public-health agencies, employers with shift workers, and officials involved in interstate commerce and transportation planning are the primary practical audiences. Federal timekeeping rules would still govern any legal change to California’s observance of daylight saving time.
Why It Matters
Although symbolic, the resolution consolidates a public-health rationale for permanent standard time that stakeholders can cite in later rulemaking or legislation and in advocacy to Congress. It also signals a preference for coordination with neighboring Pacific states, which matters for multistate commerce and scheduling systems.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SCR 7 is a short, declaratory document that gathers reasons the Legislature gives for favoring permanent standard time over biannual clock changes or leaving daylight saving time in place year-round. The bulk of the text is a sequence of "WHEREAS" paragraphs listing harms the drafters associate with daylight saving time (sleep disruption, traffic and safety risks, and impacts on student attendance), historical attempts at year-round daylight saving time, and communities thought to be disproportionately affected, such as shift workers.
The resolution references scientific and medical authority to justify its position. It frames permanent standard time as the only state-level alternative that the federal Uniform Time Act allows without congressional action — states may exempt themselves from daylight saving time and remain on standard time year-round, but they cannot adopt permanent daylight saving time without Congress.
SCR 7 also notes examples of jurisdictions that already observe standard time year-round and mentions that other Pacific states are considering similar moves, underlining the importance the drafters place on cross-border coordination.Because the document is a concurrent resolution, it does not instruct agencies to change operations or impose compliance requirements. Its practical utility is as a statement of legislative purpose: it can be used by lawmakers, health agencies, school boards, and lobbyists when proposing binding statutes, administrative changes, or coordinated multistate approaches.
The resolution ends with an administrative step directing the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies to the author for distribution — a procedural closure, not an implementation mechanism.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SCR 7 is a non-binding concurrent resolution; it does not amend the California Government Code or alter legal timekeeping in the state.
The resolution cites six named professional bodies as part of its factual basis: the California Medical Association; California Sleep Society; American Academy of Sleep Medicine; National Sleep Foundation; Sleep Research Society; and Society for Research on Biological Rhythms.
The bill lists specific harms it attributes to daylight saving time, including medical errors, heart attacks, car accidents, and student health problems and absenteeism.
SCR 7 explicitly references Senate Bill 328 (Portantino, 2019) as related legislative context on school start times and sleep for students.
The resolving clauses are limited: the Legislature "acknowledges the health benefits of permanent standard time" and instructs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to the author; there are no regulatory or funding directives.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and supporting claims
The WHEREAS sequence assembles the resolution’s factual and scientific claims: it asserts that clock changes are disruptive to health and safety, cites professional societies as advising against permanent daylight saving time, lists health and safety harms the drafters associate with DST, and raises equity concerns for shift workers and child care. Practically, these paragraphs are the evidentiary backbone of the resolution — they do not bind agencies but are the statements lawmakers can point to when justifying follow-up policy.
Historical precedent and jurisdictional examples
Several WHEREAS paragraphs recount past federal reversals of year‑round daylight saving time and enumerate jurisdictions already on permanent standard time (Arizona, Hawaii, U.S. territories, Mexico, and many other nations). This section signals that the drafters view California’s desired end state as consistent with existing practice elsewhere and as workable from a logistics standpoint; it’s intended to ease political resistance by framing the move as neither novel nor experimental.
Connection to education and business policy
The resolution references existing state policy conversations — notably SB 328 on school start times — and claims positive workforce and religious implications of permanent standard time. That linkage makes SCR 7 a portable justification for school districts or employers that may be weighing schedule changes, but the resolution itself contains no mechanism for mandating school or workplace adjustments.
Non-binding statement and administrative transmission
The operative language is brief: the Legislature "acknowledges the health benefits of permanent standard time" and orders that copies be transmitted to the author. There are no operative mandates, no appropriation, and no delegation of authority. The practical effect is communicative — to influence debate and to provide a documented legislative position for future statutory or administrative proposals.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State public-health agencies and researchers — the resolution formalizes legislative support for a public‑health framing of time policy, which can bolster grant proposals, public-health campaigns, and expert testimony supporting schedule changes.
- School districts and student‑health advocates — drafters link permanent standard time to better student sleep and lower absenteeism, giving districts a politically supported rationale to revisit start-time policies and coordinate with the Legislature.
- Shift workers and lower-income households — the bill identifies these groups as disproportionately harmed by clock changes; if policymakers act on the resolution, these workers could see fewer schedule disruptions and related childcare burdens.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers with evening‑facing operations (retail, hospitality, entertainment) — permanent standard time means darker evenings in winter months, which can affect customer patterns, safety lighting costs, and shift scheduling if implemented in law.
- Transportation and logistics operators — any shift in official timekeeping or lack of coordination with neighboring states complicates scheduling, timetabling, and software systems that rely on consistent time zones; even a symbolic resolution raises planning questions.
- State agencies and local governments — if the political momentum from the resolution leads to legislative or administrative action, agencies would face implementation costs for updating systems, issuing public guidance, and coordinating with federal authorities; those costs are not addressed in SCR 7.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is between a public‑health framing that favors permanent standard time and the practical, economic, and interstate coordination challenges of changing how time is observed: solving circadian‑health harms for mornings may create darker winter evenings, create costs for businesses and transportation systems, and require federal or multistate action to implement smoothly. SCR 7 resolves the normative question in favor of health, but it leaves the procedural and distributional questions unresolved.
The central practical limitation of SCR 7 is its non‑binding form. The resolution assembles a public‑health argument for permanent standard time but contains no mechanism to adopt it.
Federal law still governs the legal mechanics: under the Uniform Time Act a state may opt out of daylight saving time by staying on standard time year‑round, but it cannot unilaterally adopt permanent daylight saving time without congressional approval. The resolution notes that exemption but does not pursue the necessary legal steps, funding, or intergovernmental agreements that a real time change would require.
Second, the bill's claims about benefits and harms summarize contested scientific and economic evidence without quantifying trade‑offs. While several professional societies are cited, the resolution does not weigh countervailing considerations (for example, impacts on evening commercial activity, solar exposure for certain regions, or transportation safety in darker evenings).
The document also assumes neighboring states will coordinate; if they do not, California could face cross‑border friction that the resolution does not mitigate. Finally, the administrative instruction to transmit copies to the author is purely procedural — SCR 7 leaves open who will champion any concrete follow‑through, how stakeholder harms would be mitigated, and how costs would be allocated across levels of government.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.