Subscribe
With 352,000 signatures and renewed political momentum, Italy reopens the debate on ending seasonal clock changes—highlighting potential benefits for energy, the environment, and public health.
Italy is taking a decisive step toward making Daylight Saving Time (DST) permanent. On Monday, November 17, a proposal for a fact-finding inquiry—supported by 352,000 citizen signatures—was formally presented to the Chamber of Deputies. The initiative, promoted by the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine (SIMA), Consumerismo No Profit, and MP Andrea Barabotti, seeks to launch a parliamentary process that could ultimately end the biannual switch between standard time and DST. If approved, a legislative proposal could be ready by June 30, 2026.
A Long-Standing European Debate
The move revives a broader discussion that began at the EU level several years ago. In 2018, the European Commission conducted a public consultation that drew a record 4.6 million respondents. An overwhelming 84% supported abolishing seasonal clock changes altogether. Responding to this, the European Parliament endorsed a draft directive in 2019 granting each Member State the freedom to adopt either permanent DST or permanent standard time.
However, the process stalled soon afterward. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted political priorities, delaying negotiations, while member states struggled to agree on a coordinated time framework. The EU had originally envisioned a final decision by 2021, but no definitive agreement has since been reached.
Why Choose Permanent Daylight-Saving Time?
Although standard time is technically considered the “natural” system—aligned with the Sun’s highest point at noon—the push for permanent DST is driven primarily by environmental, economic, and social considerations. Advocates argue that shifting an extra hour of daylight into the evening generates tangible benefits.
Energy savings are the most frequently cited advantage. According to Terna, Italy’s national electricity grid operator, the country saved 310 million kWh between March and October 2025 thanks to DST—equivalent to the annual energy consumption of roughly 120,000 households. These savings translated into over €90 million in reduced energy costs. Just as importantly, the reduced electricity consumption avoided an estimated 145,000 tons of CO₂ emissions.
Looking at a broader timeline, the impact is even more significant: between 2004 and 2025, DST helped Italy save more than 12 billion kWh, yielding nearly €2.3 billion in economic benefits. These figures highlight why many sustainability experts argue that extending DST year-round could support national decarbonization goals while reducing energy expenses for both households and businesses.
A Century of Clock Changes
Daylight Saving Time is far from new in Italy. Introduced in 1916 during World War I to conserve fuel and make better use of daylight, it was adopted intermittently in the following decades. For about twenty years, its application fluctuated as governments alternated between abolishing and reinstating it. Stability finally arrived in 1966, when Law No. 1144 definitively established DST and advanced clocks by one hour each summer.
Today, however, the question is no longer about whether to have DST, but whether its seasonal alternation with standard time still makes sense in a modern, energy-intensive society.
Why the EU Proposal Stalled
The European debate, despite broad public support, encountered three major obstacles.
First, the pandemic froze nearly all non-urgent legislative processes, including the clock-change reform.
Second, allowing each country to choose between permanent DST or permanent standard time created a coordination challenge. A patchwork of time zones across the EU could complicate cross-border travel, trade, broadcasting schedules, and transportation timetables.
Third, experts disagreed on which option—DST or standard time—should become the norm. While permanent DST may optimize energy use and reduce emissions, standard time aligns more closely with natural circadian rhythms. This tension made harmonization difficult.
The Public Health Dimension
Scientific research increasingly points to the health impacts of biannual clock changes. Disruptions to the sleep–wake cycle can cause fatigue, reduced concentration, and irritability—especially during the first days after the transition. Some studies also suggest a correlation between time shifts and increased cardiovascular risks, including a temporary rise in heart attacks.
These findings reinforce the argument that eliminating seasonal clock changes could benefit public well-being, regardless of whether the final choice leans toward DST or standard time.
What Comes Next
Italy’s renewed initiative signals a strong national interest in resolving a debate that has lingered for years at the European level. The coming months will determine whether the proposal gains enough political traction to move forward and whether Italy will join the growing number of countries reconsidering the relevance of seasonal time changes.
If the parliamentary inquiry succeeds, Italy may soon take a leading role in shaping the future of timekeeping in Europe—one where clocks stay still, and daylight takes centre stage.
Alessandro Fiorentino