You might add that all of the studies on what are represented as being "energy" savings are actually directed to electricity usage only. These studies don't consider the other ways in which DST affects how people live and how much energy is consumed (I had seen the study of Australian electricity usage and that group can be excused, given their focus). It is hardly a secret that golf courses, fast food and the candy industry have long supported DST and pushed for extending it. The first two of these clearly depend upon people using their cars. Last I checked most cars still ran on deritvatives of oil. The proponents of DST can't prove that DST saves electricity even before we get to the question of how many light bulbs have to be extinguished to feed driving an SUV to a fast food joint for a "9:00pm" shake and hamburger. And I have yet to see a study on electricty usage under DST that considers a particular locale's longitude relative to its standard time meridian (and we in "Eastern" Indiana are a long way west of ours).

DST is marketed as a "green" policy when in fact it feeds substantially increased consumption in certain narrow industries markets, possibly with a diffuse negative impact on a broader array of other markets and, I suspect, at the cost of increased energy usage for individual transportation.

I think it's also worth wondering what the economic cost is of reprogramming all of the systems that were designed to auto-update to DST on their own. I've got clocks that auto-update that I now have to spend 3 weeks telling them they're in the wrong time zone. The doors at my building were locked this morning when I got there because it was convinced it was an hour too early. And so on. There's going to be an awful lot of effort expended getting everything set on the "New" system.