Daylight saving time (DST) was the brainchild of founding father Benjamin Franklin as a way to conserve lamp oil in the salons of Paris. More recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed by Congress to extend daylight savings in an attempt to lower the national energy bill.

But does it work that way? In the current issue of BusinessWeek, two economists offer their opinions on this timely topic.

In favor, from Steve Calandrillo of the University of Washington School of Law:

Instead of turning Daylight Saving Time (DST) off, Congress should turn it on year-round.

First, despite the contrarians, DST saves energy. Why? Far more oil, electricity, and energy are used during evening darkness than morning because more Americans are awake at 5 p.m. than at 6 a.m. Hence, shifting sunlight to the evening causes a significant reduction in evening peak load, which outweighs a small increase in the early morning load caused by DST.

And against, in the words of William F. Shughart II of the Independent Institute:

Although Daylight Saving Time (DST) has been justified as an energy-conservation measure, it is no such thing. …

Economists typically value the opportunity cost at an individual’s wage rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics preliminarily estimates that the average American’s hourly wage was $22.45 in January 2010.

Assuming it takes everyone 10 minutes to change all of his or her clocks and watches, the opportunity cost equals $3.74 per person. The one-time opportunity cost for the nation (based on total U.S. population over 18 years old, excluding residents of Arizona, which doesn’t observe DST) therefore is $836,117,536. Since clocks are changed twice yearly, the total must be doubled.

We would gladly pay $3.74 for an extra hour of sleep, but unfortunately we’ll have to wait until November 7 for that.

We’ve covered before

Under the new law, if you’re under 21, you can’t get a credit card on your own anymore. If you want to get plastic, you need to prove you have a qualifying source of income or a parent, guardian, or of-age spouse willing to cosign for you.

The idea is to cut down on the amount of consumer debt that students accumulate during their time in college. But not everyone ages 18 to 21 is pursuing a degree or wants their parents to meddle in their financial affairs.

If you have parents with bad credit or financial habits, requiring them to cosign means you are letting them determine your credit score. Unscrupulous cosigners could ring up charges under their child’s name and in the eyes of the law, both parties are equally responsible for repaying the loan.

It also means that young people will face a delay before they can begin building their credit history — an essential component of qualifying for an apartment or car loan.

Unfortunately, despite lawmakers’ best intentions, it looks like these regulations will end up penalizing responsible and independent young adults.

A version of the bill passed the House of Representatives last week, but the Senate revision may end up being a little different. The key provisions are expected to pass without much change, so barring any surprises you can expect to see most if not all of the following changes once the legislation takes effect:

• Less tiny print: For starters, you can say goodbye to tiny and unreadable fine print: all disclosures must be in 12-point font or larger. This is such a no-brainer it’s hard to imagine anyone but magnifying glasses manufacturers opposing it.

• No sudden/arbitrary rate increases: When you sign up for a credit card, or any other loan, you expect to know the interest rate you’ll be charged. Recently, however, a lot of credit card customers have been surprised with arbitrary rate increases, even if they never missed a payment. Under the new law, if you are carrying a balance at 10% fixed APR, you’ll know that interest rate won’t change (unless your monthly payment is late, or it’s a promotional rate that expired). And if it does change, you’ll have at least 45 days’ notice, plenty of time to look around for a better card and interest rate.

• High-interest debt automatically paid first: Speaking of interest rates, paying off your highest-interest loans first is always a good idea. It can be hard to actually do that, however, when you have multiple interest rates on one credit card. If you got a cash advance on your card at a high interest rate, and also did a balance transfer at a lower rate, your credit card company can apply your monthly payments to the lower-rate loan. Under the new credit card reform bill, though, high-interest debt will be automatically paid off first, just as personal finance experts have recommended for years.

The bill includes other rules designed to keep teens out of debt, as well as some more technical regulations of the way interest is calculated on existing balances (US News has a good summary of the rest of the changes). Once the Senate finishes its add-ons and amendments, the bill is expected to be voted into law within the next few days.

As the AP notes, the credit card industry isn’t having a particularly good year:

Scrutiny of the industry comes at a time when consumers are defaulting at high levels on credit card bills.

Last month, Fitch Ratings said its index of charge-offs on prime credit card portfolios rose in December to its highest level in four years. The rate at which cardholders repaid outstanding balances, meanwhile, slowed to its lowest since mid-2004.

Charge-offs are loans written off as not being repaid.

While this legislation still faces many obstacles before it clears the Senate Banking Committee through the legislative process, it’s probably fair to assume that at least some elements of it will gain momentum—due to both consumer demand and because Sen. Dodd is the committee Chairman. It also serves as a good reminder to always read the fine print to avoid big penalties on your credit card.