Category: Research Library

Alabama Nets Residents from Migration

  • July 29th, 2019

Alabama Nets Residents from Migration


Alabama netted 10,423 new residents from interstate and international migration between 1996 and 1997, the most recent period during which IRS tax return address data are available. While 87,804 Alabamians moved out of the state, 94,329 individuals moved into Alabama from other states and 3,898 moved in from foreign countries. The largest gains were from Georgia, which contributed a net of 2,423 new Alabamians, followed by Florida (1,057), Illinois (969), New York (851), California (800), Michigan (781), Pennsylvania (588), and Louisiana (561).

From 1996 to 1997, Alabama experienced a net loss of residents to 11 states. Tennessee drew 873 more people from Alabama than it sent into the state. North Carolina gained 424, Kansas 127, and Arizona 111. The states of Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, and Rhode Island together netted 263 former Alabama residents.

Alabama fared better than several southern states in attracting new residents and holding onto current ones. From 1996 to 1997, Louisiana saw the net loss of 13,698 residents due to migration, while Mississippi gained 4,188 and Kentucky netted 7,883. However, most southern states did considerably better than Alabama. Florida topped the tally with 122,753 net migrants, followed by North Carolina (60,746), Georgia (60,409), Tennessee (29,270), and South Carolina (22,256).

The Internal Revenue Service also calculates median adjusted gross income (AGI) for in-migrants and out-migrants. For Alabama, the median AGI of those who moved out of the state between 1996 and 1997 was $18,770, while incoming residents has a slightly lower median AGI of $18,366. At $21,772, median AGI for Alabama residents who stayed in the state was higher than for those moving in or out. This pattern was generally true among southern states; only Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina showed higher median adjusted gross income in the group moving in compared to the group moving out.

Note that these IRS data do not provide a complete count of migrants since they only count taxpayers and their dependents. The Census Bureau uses additional Medicare records to arrive at its estimate of total net migration into Alabama from 1996 to 1997 of 13,212. By Census Bureau estimates, Alabama gained 111,022 residents from migration between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1997. However, no detail of interstate movement is available for these totals.

**02/99

Alabama’s Population Gain Moderate in 1998

  • July 29th, 2019

Alabama’s Population Gain Moderate in 1998


Alabama added 29,886 new residents between July 1, 1997 and July 1, 1998, according to estimates released by the Bureau of the Census. Alabama’s 1998 population of 4,351,999 was 0.7 percent higher than the revised 1997 total of 4,322,113. An estimated 11,431 more people moved into the state than moved out during the year. From the 1990 census through July 1, 1998, the state’s population increase totaled 311,610, a 7.7 percent gain that ranks the state twenty-second in population growth for the 1990s. Alabama was the twenty-third most populous state in 1998. In 1995 the state slipped from the twenty-second place ranking it held in the 1990 census as a result of Arizona’s rapid population increase.

Overall, the nation’s population rose 1.0 percent from 1997 to 1998 to total 270,298,524. Led by Nevada’s population gain of 4.1 percent and Arizona’s 2.5 percent increase, the West was the fastest growing region in the country with an average gain of 1.6 percent. California showed the largest numerical increase of any state with 484,432 new residents, representing a 1.5 percent increase. At 1.3 percent, the South ranked second in overall regional growth. Georgia led the South with a population increase of 2.0 percent. Texas posted a 1.9 percent increase, while Florida and North Carolina each gained 1.6 percent. Population growth in the nation’s Midwest averaged 0.4 percent, while the Northeast saw a 0.3 percent gain. Pennsylvania’s population was down 9,827, the largest numerical loss of any state.

**02/99

A Revised Economic Forecast for 1999

  • July 29th, 2019

A Revised Economic Forecast for 1999


OverviewNational economic conditions are showing no signs of a slowdown. In five more months, the current economic expansion will have been the longest since 1854, surpassing the 106-month expansion that began in February, 1961. For the first seven months this year, there were an average of 223,000 jobs created each month, versus a monthly average of approximately 217,000 for the first seven months a year ago. All in all, the U.S. economy is expected to grow at a slightly higher rate in 1999 than in 1998.

However, Alabama’s economy is showing signs of slower growth than last year. Growth in gross state product (GSP) for Alabama for 1999 is now expected to be in the 2.7 to 2.9 percent range, versus 1998’s estimated 3.3 percent. Total nonagricultural employment growth is expected to be 1.1 percent, versus 2.0 percent last year. There will be 21,000 new jobs created this year instead of our previous expectations of 28,000.

There are four major factors in the slowing pace of economic growth in Alabama for 1999:

  • Significant job losses in manufacturing.
  • A slowdown in consumer spending.
  • Slow growth in the civilian labor force.
  • The concentration of job growth in urban areas only, impeding any economic growth in rural areas.

From June 1998 to June 1999, there were 20,200 net new jobs created in the state. The state’s ten metropolitan areas (20 counties, excluding Russell County which is a part of the Columbus, Georgia metro area) gained 22,300 new jobs. The remaining 47 counties collectively lost 2,100 jobs. Most of the new jobs created in the metropolitan areas have been in services or retail trade. Those sectors pay relatively lower wages than manufacturing industries. Among the jobs created from June 1998 to June 1999, 54 percent were in the trade sector (primarily retail trade) and the remaining 46 percent were in services. The job gains in all remaining economic sectors were pretty much negated by manufacturing’s job losses.

Alabama’s Manufacturing Jobs

From June 1998 to June 1999, manufacturing industries in Alabama lost approximately 11,100 jobs. That compares to 5,700 jobs lost during the previous 12 months. Most (approximately 8,900) lost jobs occurred in nondurable goods producing firms. These industries included companies producing

  • textiles and apparel;
  • pulp, paper and allied products;
  • chemical products; and
  • rubber and plastics.

However, firms producing durable goods also lost about 2,200 jobs. The lost durable goods jobs occurred in:

  • steel mills producing both fabricated and primary metals;
  • industrial machinery and equipment production; and
  • electronics and other electrical equipment manufacturers.
A slight improvement is expected in both the Asian and European economies during the second half of 1999. Stronger overseas economies cause the U.S. dollar to become relatively weaker. A weaker dollar expands export opportunities for American companies. Hence, some manufacturing recovery for Alabama is expected, mainly in the durable goods sectors. And with restraints on imported steel, modest improvement in the state’s steel industry is also expected.Labor Force

Economic growth depends primarily on two basic factors: labor force and productivity. Alabama’s labor force, defined as people between the ages of 16 to 65 who are either employed or are actively seeking employment, has grown much more slowly than the national average and more slowly than other Southeastern states. From June 1998 to June 1999, the state’s labor force increased by about 0.6 percent, a gain of 13,900 people. During the same period, the U.S. labor force increased 1.3 percent.

A factor contributing to slower growth in the labor force is in- migration, or rather Alabama’s lack or it. From 1997 to 1998, the net number of people moving into the state to live was 7,953, compared to an increase of 114,483 into Florida, 59,982 into Georgia, 54,234 into North Carolina, and 23,775 into South Carolina. However, in-migration can be a mixed blessing. It increases the labor force, but it also puts strains on existing infrastructure.

In order to attract new jobs and businesses, the state needs strong infrastructure development. A state that does not maintain and improve its infrastructure has fewer chances of attracting high- wage jobs and businesses. Noncompetitive growth makes it harder for that state to maintain and expand the amenities that would attract a desirable skilled labor force.

Consumer Spending

High consumer spending during recent years has been important to employment growth in the state. Consumer spending (as opposed to governmental spending) occurs primarily in retail enterprises. Retail trade has been one of the few job engines in the state recently. In fact, retailing has been a more important part of the Alabama economy than the average for the United States.

From June 1998 to June 1999, of the 20,200 jobs created in the state, 11,000 were in the trade sector (10,000 in retail and 1,000 in wholesale trade), or about 54 percent of new jobs. Nationwide, about 25 percent of new jobs have been in the trade sectors. A retrenchment in consumer spending could be a big blow to the Alabama economy.

The consumer urge to spend has been mostly fueled by higher equity and housing prices, otherwise known as the wealth effect. Recently, valuations in both housing and the stock market have been increasing very quickly, fueling a record-setting frenzy in consumer spending. Another factor affecting consumer spending is that imported goods have been relatively cheap in this country because of a high exchange rate value of the U.S. dollar.

However, there is a limit to how long the U.S. consumer can support these levels of spending. Expected higher interest rates and higher import prices could very well bring the spending spree to an end. Measures of consumer sentiment and consumer confidence are both showing a downward trend. Repercussions from lower consumer spending could prove to be detrimental to Alabama’s economic growth.

Ahmad Ijaz 

ab0999chart.jpg (43731 bytes)

 

Population Gains Strongest in Alabama’s Metro Areas

  • July 29th, 2019

Population Gains Strongest in Alabama’s Metro Areas


Three Alabama metropolitan areas are identified in the list of the nation’s fastest growing metro areas, according to a recent Census Bureau report. Huntsville ranked 48th in the report with a 16.2 percent increase in population between 1990 and 1998, making it Alabama’s fastest growing metro area. Auburn-Opelika observed a 15.3 percent growth rate to finish 57th nationally. Mobile was the third fastest growing area in the state with a population gain of 11.6 percent, ranking 86th nationally.Montgomery, with an estimated population increase from 1990 to 1998 of 10.0 percent, was the only other metro area in the state to report growth above the national average of 8.7 percent. Decatur, Birmingham, and Tuscaloosa followed with estimates of 8.6, 8.2, and 6.8 percent growth, respectively. Population growth in the remainder of Alabama’s metropolitan areas was slow—from 1990 to 1998, population gains amounted to 4.5 percent in the Florence metropolitan area, 4.1 percent in Gadsden, 2.9 percent in Dothan, and 0.8 percent in Anniston.

The South as a whole was second only to the West in terms of growth for a geographic area with an average growth rate of 13.1 percent in metropolitan areas; 7.5 percent in non-metro areas. While Alabama’s overall population increase lagged the South’s average, a similar metro/non-metro growth discrepancy was seen—population in the state’s metropolitan areas increased by 9.1 percent from 1990 to 1998 while the non-metro areas saw a gain of just 4.8 percent. Alabama’s population residing in its metro areas in 1998 was a substantial 70.1 percent of the total; still, however, below the U.S. average of 80.1 percent.

Three metro areas in the state either met or exceeded the national average of 1.0 percent population growth for the year July 1, 1997 through July 1, 1998. Auburn-Opelika’s population increased from 98,412 to 100,444 during this period, a gain of 2.1 percent. Huntsville also reported an increase of 2.1 percent as its population grew from 333,521 to 340,428. Mobile tied the national average with an increase from 527,052 to 532,257. Birmingham, Montgomery, and Decatur all posted increases of 0.8 percent for the one-year period.

 

Median Family Income for FY99

  • July 26th, 2019

Median Family Income for FY99


The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently released estimates of median family income for Fiscal Year 1999. Median family income is calculated annually for each metropolitan area and for each nonmetropolitan county. Separate estimates for counties within metropolitan areas are not available. Fiscal year median family income estimates are based on median family income from the 1990 census updated with Bureau of Labor Statistics earnings and employment data and Census divisional P-60 median family income data.

Alabama’s FY99 median family income was $41,500, 86.8 percent of the United States median of $47,800. Alabama ranked 39th among the 50 states on median family income. From FY98 to FY99, median family income in the state rose 7.2 percent compared to a national increase of 5.5 percent.

Five of Alabama’s ten metropolitan areas had FY99 median family incomes above the statewide median. Median family incomes of $54,600 in the Huntsville MA and $47,900 in Birmingham were also above the national median. Other metro areas above the statewide median include Montgomery ($47,000), Decatur ($46,500), and Tuscaloosa ($42,400). Among the state’s 46 nonmetropolitan counties, only Henry and Lee were at or above the statewide median family income. At $23,000, Wilcox County’s median was the lowest in the state.

**02/99

School District Poverty Data

  • July 26th, 2019

School District Poverty Data


The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 directed the Department of Education to consider distributing Title I basic and concentration grants directly to school districts for the 1999-2000 school year. The Department of Education asked the Census Bureau to provide the data at a school district level that would make this possible. The Census Bureau recently completed its work, which was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). NAS recommended to the Secretaries of Education and Commerce that the Census Bureau’s 1995 school district estimates of poor school-age children be used to make direct Title I allocations to school districts for the 1999-2000 year. The Secretaries of Education and Commerce have decided to follow the Academy’s recommendation. The $7.6 billion available for Title I, Part A funds will be allocated through each state’s Department of Education to local educational agencies (LEAs) for school year 1999-2000 using the Census Bureau’s 1995 school district poverty estimates.

Previously, Title I grants were distributed on a county basis, with the individual states having responsibility to redistribute the funds from counties to school districts. This redistribution was done using a variety of techniques that varied by state. Many states used 1990 census data, or 1990 census data combined with data from other programs targeting a poor population, such as

  • Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
  • The Food Stamp Program
  • Medicaid
  • The Foster Care Program, and
  • The School Lunch Program.

Other states used these alternative data sources only. Under the legislation that allocates funds directly to school districts, states can aggregate and then redistribute funds for school districts with a population of less than 20,000.

The poverty estimates are based on school districts, frequently called school systems in Alabama, as they existed in school year 1995-96. The U.S. Department of Education will provide guidance for state departments of education to use in accounting for eligible systems not on the Census Bureau’s list. The statute provides that a state, with Department of Education approval, may use alternative poverty data to redistribute allocations for all school systems serving fewer than 20,000 total residents. The Department will provide guidance for state education agencies seeking such approval.

Three estimates are provided for each school district: total population in 1995, the number of school-age children (ages 5-17) related to the head of household, and the number of related school-age children in families in poverty.

The school district estimates were created using a “synthetic estimator.” This was done by multiplying the number of poor children in a district from the 1990 census by the proportional change in child poverty in the county in which the district is located. The county change is computed as the change from the 1990 census to the Census Bureau’s county model estimates for 1995. School district poverty estimates were adjusted to sum to the county estimates. Note that the school district estimates consider all children in the district, irrespective of whether they attend public school. Estimates are generally more reliable for the larger districts. The “synthetic” estimates for school districts do not have the degree of precision normally associated with Census Bureau estimates.

**02/99

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates

  • July 26th, 2019

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates


At the direction of the Congress, the Census Bureau initiated a program to provide estimates of income and poverty for states and counties between decennial censuses. Each year, billions of government dollars are divided among, and billions of business dollars are targeted to, states and communities based on their economic profiles as described by the last census. Since economic conditions can change considerably between censuses, more current estimates of income and poverty could improve the administration of public programs and the allocation of federal and state funds to local jurisdictions. Up-to-date appraisals could permit businesses to make more efficient plans and more appropriate decisions.

Along with the Census Bureau, five federal departments that use these data have supported the development of the estimates:

  1. The Department of Agriculture (Food and Consumer Service),
  2. The Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics),
  3. The Department of Health and Human Services (Head Start Program),
  4. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (Office of Policy Development and Research), and
  5. The Department of Labor (Employment and Training Administration).

Numerous other federal and state programs that rely on decennial Census estimates of income and poverty in their allocation formulas may also elect to use the new estimates.

Statistical models are the only practical way to make consistent estimates for all states and counties in the country. The statistical models for the state and county estimates relate income and poverty to indicators based on

  • Summary data from federal income tax returns,
  • Data about participation in the Food Stamp and Supplemental Security Income programs, and
  • The 1990 census.

These estimates are then combined with survey data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) to provide figures that are more precise than either set alone. This is a standard method for making statistical estimates for small areas.

Estimates for counties are controlled to sum, using a ratio method, to the independently estimated state totals. State totals were previously controlled to sum to the official national poverty estimates derived from the March CPS for the year being estimated.

The estimates are based, in part, on summary data from federal income tax returns. Because tax returns for a given year are filed throughout the year that follows, statistical data files are not available until two years after a particular tax year. State and county income and poverty estimates for income year 1995 could not be produced until 1998 and were released to the public in February 1999. Revised estimates of state and county median household income and poverty for 1989 and 1993 were issued in January 1999.

**02/99

Population Estimates Methodology

  • July 26th, 2019

Population Estimates Methodology


The annual population estimates are the computed number of persons living in an area as of July 1. The computations used to make the estimates take into account births, deaths, and people moving into and out of the state, both from other states and from abroad. The estimates are for the resident population. The resident population includes all the residents, both civilian and Armed Forces, living in the state, but excludes U.S. citizens residing abroad.

Migration is an important component of population change. Domestic in-migration and out-migration consist of moves where both the origins and destinations are within the United States, excluding Puerto Rico. International migration consists of

  1. legal immigration to the United States as reported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
  2. an estimate of undocumented immigration from abroad
  3. an estimate of emigration from the United States, and
  4. movement between Puerto Rico and the United States.

In-migration is an important part of Alabama’s population growth. Whereas we were the 23rd largest state, we ranked 13th in the nation for people moving to our state from other states. Thirty-seven percent of Alabama’s population growth during the 1990s has come because of people from other states who have chosen to move here. On the other hand, Alabama is one of the last choices for people from other countries who move to the United States. Alabama ranked 39 of 51 (including the District of Columbia) for net international migration. Only 4 percent of Alabama’s growth during the last 8 years has been because of people moving here from abroad.

Population estimates for all states and for Alabama counties can be found in the Data section.

**03/99

Sixty-Five in Alabama

  • July 26th, 2019

Sixty-Five in Alabama


During the 20th century, the number of persons in the United States aged 65 or older jumped by a factor of 11. The elderly, who comprised only one in every 25 Americans (3.1 million) in 1900, made up one in eight (34.1 million) in 1997. Declining fertility and mortality rates also have led to a sharp rise in the median age of our nation’s population—from 23 years old in 1900 to 35 in 1997. Between 2000 and 2025, the 65 and over population in the United States is expected to increase 78.5 percent, according to the Census Bureau’s middle series projections.Alabama’s elderly population growth is following similar trends. The number of residents 65 and over increased from just 54,306 in 1900 to 565,197 in 1997, while the median age climbed from 18.9 to 35.2. From 2000 to 2025, the state’s elderly population is projected to increase almost 84 percent, from 582,000 to 1,069,000. By 2025 one in five Alabamians could be elderly. Most of this growth will occur after 2010 when the leading edge of the baby boomers (those born in 1946) have had their 65th birthdays. Between 2010 and 2025 the growth rate of the population over 65 will be about 16 percent every five years. By comparison, the total population of Alabama will increase about three percent every five years.

Back when the United States was founded, life expectancy at birth stood at only about 35 years. It reached 47 years in1900, jumped to 68 years in 1950, and steadily rose to 76 years in 1996. In 1996 life expectancy was higher for women (79 years) than for men (73 years). By 2010 life expectancy will be 74 years for men and nearly 81 years for women. Once Alabama baby boomers reach 65 they can expect to live another 15 to 17 years.

Many assume health among the elderly has improved because they, as a group, are living longer. Others hold a contradictory image of the elderly as dependent and frail. The truth actually lies somewhere in between. Poor health is not as prevalent as many assume. On the other hand, as more people live to the oldest ages, there may also be more who face chronic, limiting illnesses or conditions, such as arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, and senile dementia. People with these conditions may become dependent on others for help in performing the activities of daily living. Aging brings increased chances of being dependent.According to the Alabama Center for Health Statistics, heart disease, cancer, and stroke, in that order, are the leading causes of death among the elderly. Though death rates from heart disease have declined for the elderly nationwide, it is not clear that heart disease for elderly Alabamians is decreasing. Death rates from cancer, on the other hand, have been increasing both in Alabama and the nation.

The perception of “elderly” and “poor” as practically synonymous has changed in recent years to a view that the noninstitutionalized elderly are better off than other Americans. Both views are simplistic. Age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, living arrangements, educational attainment, former occupation, and work history are characteristics associated with significant income differences. For instance, elderly white men have higher median incomes than other groups. Research has shown that the better educated tend to be healthier longer and better off economically. Fortunately, educational attainment among men and women, blacks and whites, has increased significantly in our state during the past two decades. When these people enter the sixty-five-plus age group, we can hope for an elderly Alabama population with less poverty and fewer health problems than is now the case.

Annette Jones Watters and
Carolyn Trent

Editor’s Note: This article is based in part on a Census Bureau monograph in the Statistical Brief series, “Sixty-Five Plus in the United States,” SB/95-8, May, 1995.

 

Who Pays for Cutting Smog-Causing Emissions?

  • July 26th, 2019

Who Pays for Cutting Smog-Causing Emissions?


On September 24, 1998 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered 22 states east of the Mississippi to reduce smog-causing emissions in a move to halt wind-borne air pollution in the Northeast. The order requires states to have a clean-air plan in place by September of this year and controls by 2003. The move is expected to prevent thousands of cases each year of smog-related illnesses such as bronchitis and exacerbated cases of childhood asthma. Nitrogen oxides, referred to collectively as NOx, are the main smog-causing pollutants. The EPA order requires that by 2003 the 22 states (actually 21 states, since Rhode Island does not have to reduce its emissions) reduce their NOx emissions by a total of 1.16 million tons annually from 1997 levels. See page 4 for the specific list of states and their required reductions.Large, fossil-fuel burning power plants and automobiles are the major sources of NOx emissions. The EPA estimates that it will cost $1,500 per ton of NOx reduction by utilities, compared to $3,400 per ton by automobiles. Thus, the EPA advocates focusing on power plants and estimates that the reduction can be achieved by adding $1 to the average consumer’s bill. Some industry and state environmental officials disagree. They distrust EPA’s estimates regarding wind-borne smog traveling to the Northeast and EPA’s estimate of the pollution-reducing cost per electricity consumer. These concerns raise the question: Who pays for NOx reduction to benefit only the Northeast? In other words, does the EPA Order burden the states equitably?

Trendline analyses between states’ required NOx reductions and selected economic and demographic data reveal several interesting facts.

On cursory inspection it would seem that states with larger populations are being required to reduce more; however, the percentage reduction is independent of population size. States with lower per capita income are being required to reduce more, in both amount of and percent reduction, so that the poor are being asked to bear a greater burden. States that use more electricity are required to reduce more emissions, making the EPA Order seem fair. However, states that generate and export electricity have an even higher burden.Although automobile NOx emission reduction is more costly, some experts advocate placing the burden on the driver who is using the road and causing the smog. But automobiles are not the main focus of the EPA Order. Electricity is being targeted, even though it is not fair to burden every electricity consumer equally, when the benefits are primarily for one section of the country.

What does all this mean for Alabama? Alabama’s low per capita income indicates a lower ability to afford clean air and health benefits for our northeastern sisters, even if we are willing to pay for that. Alabama is also a net exporter of electricity—a factor for which the state should receive credits rather than blame. Thus, the state is being targeted unfairly to bear the cost of benefits to the Northeast.

Alabama has local emissions problems to deal with. The air in some of our own counties is not clean. Adopting emissions controls on vehicles would help alleviate the local pollution. And, we are also required, somehow, to help pay for cleaning the air in the Northeast.

Samuel N. Addy


States Required to Reduce Smop-Causing Emissions

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

   to be Cut by the Year 2003

Percent

                  Electricity, 1997         

Miles of

Federal, Public,

Reduction from

Use  

Generation

and Interstate

Per Capita

STATE

Tons

1997 Levels

(million KWh)

(million KWh)

Road, 1995

Income, 1997

 

Alabama 59,934 27 73,410 113,684 117,714 $20,599
Connecticut 3,234 7 28,377 13,228 26,569 35,954
Delaware 2,413 12 10,025 6,579 7,110 28,443
Georgia 63,158 26 100,400 101,780 142,671 23,893
Illinois 100,965 32 125,882 131,138 173,627 27,927
Indiana 114,169 36 88,400 110,466 116,053 23,183
Kentucky 75,298 33 75,748 91,558 88,143 20,599
Maryland 21,182 23 56,481 44,553 37,586 28,571
Massachusetts 1,647 2 47,543 33,899 42,013 31,207
Michigan 88,842 30 97,029 89,565 151,991 24,998
Missouri 60,556 35 65,268 71,073 154,148 23,723
New Jersey 9,961 9 66,495 23,761 45,498 32,233
New York 10,590 6 131,602 108,099 139,775 30,299
North Carolina 61,449 29 108,439 107,371 118,159 23,174
Ohio 132,728 36 156,606 141,249 144,019 24,203
Pennsylvania 79,338 24 126,512 177,167 147,396 25,578
Rhode Island 6,680 3,563 7,547 25,589
South Carolina 29,281 21 67,798 78,374 82,414 20,551
Tennessee 69,950 28 86,001 93,293 103,428 22,752
Virginia 35,331 18 87,242 58,986 91,340 26,172
West Virginia 97,967 51 26,224 88,284 45,920 18,734
Wisconsin 38,851 27 59,943 48,560 139,776 24,199


Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration; U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; and Environmental Protection Agency.