Leading, Slipping, Gaining, Lagging Analysis:
Assessing Utilities Employment Growth
Across Texas Counties
Utilities
Employment Growth
County vs Statewide Average: 2010-2022 and 2022
Utilities
Employment Growth
Texas:
2010-2022 = 1.21%
2022 = 6.38%
Borrowing from an approach that sometimes appears in the finance sections of the popular press, LSGL analysis is a handy and versatile way to compare, portray and classify the patterns of utilities employment growth across all of Texas' 254 counties. In finance, this technique is used for comparing and assessing the market performance of individual securities or across industry sectors. For example, the performance of the 30 stocks contained within Dow are compared with one another over the past week in contrast to their performance over the past month using the Dow's respective averages as the points of reference.
Here in this Texas Regional Economic Analysis Project report, we adopt this approach to gauge and compare the utilities employment growth of Texas' 254 counties over the latest available year (2022) against the backdrop of their growth over the long term period (2010-2022). In so doing we classify their growth and performance into 4 broad categories: Leading, Slipping, Gaining and Lagging.
Utilities
Employment Growth
County vs Statewide Average: 2010-2022 and 2022
Utilities
Employment Growth
Texas:
2010-2022 = 1.21%
2022 = 6.38%
This figure displays the 254 counties of Texas as dots on a scattergram, with the vertical axis representing the average annual utilities employment growth rate over the long-term period (2010-2022), and the horizontal axis representing the utilities employment growth rate for the near-term (2022).
This figure sets apart those counties whose long-term utilities employment growth exceeded the statewide average of 1.21%, by portraying them in the top two quadrants demarcated at 1.21% on the vertical axis. County whose long-term average annual utilities employment growth rate trailed the statewide average (1.21%) are distributed in the bottom two quadrants. In all, 63 counties surpassed the statewide average over 2010-2022, while 50 counties fell below.
Similarly, the two quadrants on the right of this figure present the positions of the 32 counties whose most recent (2022) utilities employment growth rate exceeded the statewide average (6.38%). The two quadrants on the left feature those 81 counties whose utilities employment growth over 2022 trailed the statewide average.
Accordingly, each quadrant portrays the performance of all 254 counties corresponding with their long-term (2010-2022) and near-term (2022) performance relative to their respective statewide averages of 1.21% over 2010-2022 and 6.38% over 2022:
Leading counties () (top-right quadrant)...are counties whose average annual utilities employment growth rate surpassed the statewide average both long-term (1.21%) and near-term (6.38%).
Slipping counties () (top-left quadrant)...are counties whose long-term average annual utilities employment growth rate exceeded the statewide average (1.21%), but whose near-term growth has "slipped" by falling below the Texas average (6.38%).
Gaining counties () (bottom-right quadrant)...are counties whose long-term average annual utilities employment growth rate fell below the statewide average (1.21%), but whose near-term growth has "gained" by registering above the average (6.38%) statewide.
Lagging counties () (bottom-left quadrant)...are counties whose average annual utilities employment growth rate fell under the statewide average both long-term (1.21%) and near-term (6.38%).
   
 
Summary of Texas' 254 County Totals
 
Short Term Average
 
 
Below
(6.38%)
Above
(6.38%)
 
Long
Term
Average
Above
(1.21%)
38
25
63
Below
(1.21%)
43
7
50
 
81
32
113
 
   
Leading Counties
2022 vs. 2010-2022 Averages
Leading Counties
white dot
Texas:
2010-2022 = 1.21%
2022 = 6.38%
Turning attention to the top-right quadrant from the discussion above, this figure features the distribution of the Texas counties classified as Leading. These counties surpassed Texas' average annual utilities employment growth both long-term (2010-2022 = 1.21%) as well as near-term (2022 = 6.38%). Each is identified by its corresponding ranking based on it's average annual utilities employment growth rate over 2010-2022.
Of Texas' 254 counties, just 25 (10%) are classified within the Leading () category. Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
Slipping Counties
2022 vs. 2010-2022 Averages
Slipping Counties
Texas:
2010-2022 = 1.21%
2022 = 6.38%
This figure depicts the distribution of the 38 Texas counties classified as Slipping (top-left quadrant), in that their long-term average annual utilities employment growth rate outpaced the average statewide (2010-2022 = 1.21%), while they trailed the statewide average near-term (2022 = 6.38%). Again, each county is identified by it's corresponding ranking based on its average annual utilities employment growth rate over 2010-2022.
Only 38 (15%) of Texas' 254 counties are classified as Slipping (). Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
Gaining Counties
2022 vs. 2010-2022 Averages
Gaining Counties
white dot
Texas:
2010-2022 = 1.21%
2022 = 6.38%
This figure shows the distribution of the 7 Texas counties classified as Gaining (bottom-right quadrant), in that their long-term average annual utilities employment growth rate posted below the average statewide (2010-2022 = 1.21%), while they outpaced Texas' average near-term (2022 = 6.38%). Again, each county is identified by its corresponding ranking based on its average annual utilities employment growth rate over 2010-2022.
Of Texas' 254 counties, only 3% (7) are featured as Gaining (). Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
Lagging Counties
2022 vs. 2010-2022 Averages
Lagging Counties
white dot
Texas:
2010-2022 = 1.21%
2022 = 6.38%
This figure depicts the distributions of the 43 Texas counties classified as Lagging (bottom-left quadrant). These counties trailed the statewide average annual utilities employment growth both long-term (2010-2022 = 1.21%) as well as near-term (2022 = 6.38%). Again, each county is identified by its corresponding ranking based on it's average annual utilities employment growth rate over 2010-2022.
17% of Texas' counties, 43 of 254, are characterized here as Lagging (). Those counties ranked by their long-term average include:
   
 
Texas
Utilities Employment Growth
County vs. Statewide Average
 
2010-2022
 
2022
 
 
Leading Counties
 
8
14.85
 
1
42.29
932
 
28
3.94
 
42
6.67
96
 
21
5.24
 
37
8.61
391
 
24
4.69
 
26
11.11
20
 
45
2.41
 
2
41.18
24
 
20
5.55
 
14
17.48
363
 
14
8.31
 
20
12.50
9
 
51
2.04
 
30
10.33
299
 
62
1.25
 
27
11.04
17,764
 
39
2.74
 
10
19.05
300
 
58
1.55
 
40
7.80
152
 
13
8.49
 
22
12.38
363
 
50
2.05
 
11
18.94
270
 
16
7.21
 
19
14.02
122
 
4
20.92
 
6
26.91
830
 
26
4.47
 
33
10.04
1,096
 
10
12.06
 
12
18.75
133
 
11
10.40
 
28
10.98
192
 
1
24.17
 
32
10.10
229
 
25
4.64
 
41
7.62
113
 
31
3.18
 
31
10.24
2,745
 
57
1.61
 
36
9.11
455
 
37
2.87
 
13
17.84
1,440
 
46
2.40
 
18
14.29
48
 
60
1.45
 
3
31.03
114
Slipping Counties
 
27
4.41
 
138
-6.67
168
 
52
1.83
 
137
-5.48
138
 
40
2.63
 
63
3.99
365
 
63
1.23
 
70
3.47
417
 
53
1.83
 
88
1.62
439
 
30
3.49
 
139
-8.07
695
 
44
2.46
 
47
5.33
79
 
33
3.18
 
100
0.00
37
 
36
2.98
 
52
4.62
929
 
3
21.79
 
100
0.00
3
 
35
3.08
 
148
-21.57
200
 
43
2.47
 
97
0.82
1,607
 
5
20.14
 
79
2.50
123
 
17
6.91
 
67
3.66
85
 
34
3.14
 
122
-1.98
396
 
29
3.70
 
66
3.69
309
 
23
4.90
 
76
2.94
140
 
54
1.82
 
126
-2.50
39
 
19
5.82
 
100
0.00
16
 
55
1.82
 
64
3.95
1,079
 
41
2.62
 
43
6.12
312
 
7
15.38
 
100
0.00
2
 
38
2.86
 
123
-2.07
142
 
2
21.92
 
100
0.00
3
 
56
1.67
 
135
-5.28
592
 
15
7.85
 
145
-13.79
50
 
48
2.06
 
57
4.35
144
 
9
14.04
 
67
3.66
85
 
12
9.31
 
94
1.33
76
 
18
6.36
 
53
4.58
1,164
 
49
2.06
 
62
4.00
26
 
32
3.18
 
85
2.08
49
 
47
2.28
 
48
5.26
20
 
22
5.11
 
69
3.57
116
 
59
1.50
 
81
2.44
461
 
6
15.99
 
70
3.47
1,251
 
61
1.29
 
90
1.49
68
 
42
2.48
 
95
0.87
116
Gaining Counties
 
104
-2.13
 
29
10.34
32
 
69
0.88
 
39
7.84
110
 
67
1.01
 
7
25.71
88
 
96
-0.66
 
8
23.97
1,112
 
110
-3.47
 
15
15.83
439
 
71
0.72
 
35
9.16
274
 
75
0.60
 
4
29.92
317
Lagging Counties
 
105
-2.15
 
152
-47.44
41
 
85
0.07
 
58
4.27
244
 
82
0.12
 
60
4.17
25
 
81
0.18
 
82
2.38
129
 
79
0.33
 
50
5.06
83
 
97
-0.74
 
100
0.00
141
 
94
-0.48
 
44
6.04
5,351
 
100
-1.21
 
132
-4.40
87
 
91
-0.21
 
87
1.79
57
 
101
-1.24
 
56
4.41
71
 
113
-9.00
 
86
2.00
51
 
77
0.38
 
127
-2.57
379
 
89
-0.05
 
91
1.47
277
 
70
0.77
 
140
-8.10
329
 
76
0.59
 
130
-3.54
191
 
73
0.62
 
61
4.14
151
 
99
-0.95
 
55
4.49
93
 
65
1.08
 
146
-17.65
56
 
109
-3.41
 
79
2.50
41
 
64
1.10
 
49
5.10
103
 
86
0.00
 
100
0.00
1
 
80
0.19
 
147
-20.14
111
 
86
0.00
 
100
0.00
0
 
93
-0.44
 
99
0.38
528
 
84
0.08
 
124
-2.33
42
 
72
0.68
 
128
-2.63
148
 
107
-2.58
 
149
-23.15
581
 
90
-0.20
 
136
-5.33
142
 
78
0.37
 
100
0.00
77
 
111
-3.71
 
84
2.13
144
 
106
-2.25
 
121
-0.30
327
 
88
-0.01
 
100
0.00
27
 
95
-0.55
 
144
-13.55
319
 
66
1.08
 
78
2.53
162
 
92
-0.44
 
124
-2.33
42
 
102
-1.64
 
45
5.88
54
 
103
-2.12
 
133
-4.65
41
 
68
0.96
 
83
2.23
229
 
74
0.60
 
131
-3.95
170
 
112
-8.41
 
134
-4.76
40
 
98
-0.91
 
100
0.00
21
 
108
-3.40
 
75
2.98
173
 
83
0.10
 
98
0.65
156
Undefined/Suppressed Counties
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
54
4.55
23
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
96
0.84
120
 
U
U
 
51
4.69
134
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
1
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
143
-10.34
52
 
U
U
 
20
12.50
18
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
129
-3.09
157
 
U
U
 
46
5.71
37
 
U
U
 
89
1.57
129
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
5
29.79
61
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
77
2.61
236
 
U
U
 
9
22.22
33
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
16
15.38
15
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
1
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
92
1.37
74
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
5
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
65
3.85
189
 
U
U
 
141
-8.22
67
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
16
15.38
15
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
142
-10.00
18
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
3
 
U
U
 
150
-26.04
71
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
17
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
38
7.89
41
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
27
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
151
-31.63
67
 
U
U
 
34
9.29
200
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
1
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
24
11.54
58
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
73
3.16
98
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
25
11.43
39
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
27
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
5
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
1
 
U
U
 
S
S
62
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
193
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
1
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
87
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
59
4.26
49
 
U
U
 
74
3.01
137
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
100
0.00
24
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
24
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
93
1.35
75
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
23
11.76
57
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
72
3.45
30
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
U
U
 
S
S
S
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.21
 
6.38
62,244
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.23
 
2.40
605,600
November 2023
REAP_PI_CA1500N_510300_LSGL
 
   
Analysis Options Menu
Select Year Interval
to
Select Alternative Industry
Highlight a Region (Optional)
AndersonKarnes
AndrewsKaufman
AngelinaKendall
AransasKenedy
ArcherKent
ArmstrongKerr
AtascosaKimble
AustinKing
BaileyKinney
BanderaKleberg
BastropKnox
BaylorLamar
BeeLamb
BellLampasas
BexarLa Salle
BlancoLavaca
BordenLee
BosqueLeon
BowieLiberty
BrazoriaLimestone
BrazosLipscomb
BrewsterLive Oak
BriscoeLlano
BrooksLoving
BrownLubbock
BurlesonLynn
BurnetMcCulloch
CaldwellMcLennan
CalhounMcMullen
CallahanMadison
CameronMarion
CampMartin
CarsonMason
CassMatagorda
CastroMaverick
ChambersMedina
CherokeeMenard
ChildressMidland
ClayMilam
CochranMills
CokeMitchell
ColemanMontague
CollinMontgomery
CollingsworthMoore
ColoradoMorris
ComalMotley
ComancheNacogdoches
ConchoNavarro
CookeNewton
CoryellNolan
CottleNueces
CraneOchiltree
CrockettOldham
CrosbyOrange
CulbersonPalo Pinto
DallamPanola
DallasParker
DawsonParmer
Deaf SmithPecos
DeltaPolk
DentonPotter
DeWittPresidio
DickensRains
DimmitRandall
DonleyReagan
DuvalReal
EastlandRed River
EctorReeves
EdwardsRefugio
EllisRoberts
El PasoRobertson
ErathRockwall
FallsRunnels
FanninRusk
FayetteSabine
FisherSan Augustine
FloydSan Jacinto
FoardSan Patricio
Fort BendSan Saba
FranklinSchleicher
FreestoneScurry
FrioShackelford
GainesShelby
GalvestonSherman
GarzaSmith
GillespieSomervell
GlasscockStarr
GoliadStephens
GonzalesSterling
GrayStonewall
GraysonSutton
GreggSwisher
GrimesTarrant
GuadalupeTaylor
HaleTerrell
HallTerry
HamiltonThrockmorton
HansfordTitus
HardemanTom Green
HardinTravis
HarrisTrinity
HarrisonTyler
HartleyUpshur
HaskellUpton
HaysUvalde
HemphillVal Verde
HendersonVan Zandt
HidalgoVictoria
HillWalker
HockleyWaller
HoodWard
HopkinsWashington
HoustonWebb
HowardWharton
HudspethWheeler
HuntWichita
HutchinsonWilbarger
IrionWillacy
JackWilliamson
JacksonWilson
JasperWinkler
Jeff DavisWise
JeffersonWood
Jim HoggYoakum
Jim WellsYoung
JohnsonZapata
JonesZavala
Copyright © 2023. Pacific Northwest Regional Economic Analysis Project (PNREAP). All Rights Reserved.

Please stay tuned...
while your request is processing:

Please wait while your request is being processed...
To offer the most comprehensive set of interactive options in support of your research, TX-REAP calculates and crunches most of the data and generates the narrative and graphic analysis on demand in response to your request.
Your request will soon be available.
Just a few more seconds....Your request has been generated and is now loading the results.