NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Economic Development Impact 

of 1,000 MW of Wind Energy in 

Texas

Sandra Reategui and Stephen Hendrickson

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-50400

August 2011
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Economic Development Impact 

of 1,000 MW of Wind Energy in 

Texas

Sandra Reategui and Stephen Hendrickson

Prepared under Task No. WE11.1121

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A20-50400

August 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the wind power developers, local lawyers, county commissioners, 

and industry experts who participated in this project by taking the time to answer our 

questions and review our results. We acknowledge that this report would not have been 

possible without their support. We are also grateful for the contributions from Frank Oteri 

on Section 4 of this report and the valuable suggestions and thorough review from 

Suzanne Tegen (NREL), Eric Lantz (NREL), and Marshall Goldberg (MRG & 

Associates). Moreover, the authors would like to acknowledge the support of Wind 

Powering America and the U.S. Department of Energy Wind and Water Power Program.
iv

Executive Summary

Texas is a global leader in installed wind energy. If Texas were its own country, it would 

be ranked sixth in the world in terms of installed wind energy capacity (WWEA 2010). It

has approximately 10,135 MW of wind energy capacity installed (through April 2011), 

followed by Iowa with 3,675 MW and California with 3,179 MW (AWEA 2011). The 

scale of wind energy deployment in Texas has spurred local supply chain development 

and various activities that contribute to a diversified energy economy. State and federal 

policies, market conditions, and economic development priorities support the addition of 

wind energy capacity. 

As a result of the significant investment the wind industry has brought to the state, it is 

important to better understand the economic development impacts of wind energy in 

Texas. This report analyzes the jobs and economic impacts of 1,000 MW of wind power 

generation in the state. The impacts highlighted here can be used in policy and planning 

decisions and can be scaled to get a sense of the economic development opportunities 

associated with other wind scenarios. It can also inform stakeholders in other states about 

the potential economic impacts associated with the development of this scale of new 

wind power generation and the relationships between different elements in the state 

economy. 

According to this analysis, 1,000 MW of wind power development in the state of Texas

does all of the following: 

• Generated over 2,100 full-time-equivalent (FTE)1

• Currently supports approximately 240 permanent Texas jobs 

jobs within the state of Texas 

during construction periods

• Generated nearly $260 million in economic activity for Texas during the 

construction period 

• Generates nearly $35 million in annual Texas economic activity during operating 

periods

• Generates more than $7 million in annual property taxes2

• Generates nearly $5 million annually in income for Texas landowners who lease 

their land for wind energy projects.

Results above are provided in $2009 real dollars.

 1 FTE represents a full-time position for an entire year, which is 2,080 hours. 2 Because tax payments vary every year, the annual property tax calculation is based on the average annual 

payment over a 20-year period using a discount rate of 3%. See Section 3.3 for more information. 
v

Table of Contents

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................vi

List of Tables...............................................................................................................................................vi

1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1

2 Methodology..........................................................................................................................................2

2.1 The Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model .........................................................2

2.2 Research Data and Assumptions..........................................................................................4

3 Results ...................................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Gross Economic Activity.....................................................................................................9

3.2 Employment Impacts.........................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Construction Jobs......................................................................................................10

3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Jobs..............................................................................11

3.3 Property Tax Revenue Impacts..........................................................................................12

3.4 Landowner Revenue Impacts.............................................................................................12

4 Manufacturing Potential .....................................................................................................................13

4.1 Texas Wind Turbine and Component Manufacturing .......................................................14

4.2 Manufacturing Scenarios...................................................................................................15

5 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................17

References .................................................................................................................................................18

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................21
vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Wind energy ripple effect categories from the JEDI model................................ 3

Figure 2. Construction cost breakdown assumptions ......................................................... 6

Figure 3. Economic ripple effect from 1,000 MW of wind energy in Texas ..................... 8

Figure 4. Estimated local spending supported by 1,000 MW of wind energy in Texas 

during project construction ................................................................................... 10

Figure 5. Texas utility-scale wind energy manufacturing map......................................... 13

Figure 6. Manufacturing scenarios and associated job impacts during construction ....... 15

Figure A-1. Texas average annual wind speed at 80 m.................................................... 21

List of Tables 

Table 1. Utility-Scale Wind Energy Projects Selected for this Study ................................ 4

Table 2. Overall Cost Assumptions.................................................................................... 5

Table 3. Construction Cost Assumptions............................................................................ 5

Table 4. Operating Cost Assumptions................................................................................ 7

Table 5. Other Parameters................................................................................................... 7

Table 6. Texas Summary Impacts from 1,000 MW of Wind Energy Development .......... 9

Table 7. Texas Utility-Scale Wind Manufacturing Facilities (Not Exhaustive)............... 14
1

1 Introduction

A growing population, increasing demand for energy, and energy price uncertainty have 

created public support for wind power development in several states. In addition, Texas 

has sought to diversify its energy mix with wind energy, which can also address some 

economic development and environmental priorities. 

Numerous conditions drive wind energy development in Texas. Texas has excellent wind 

resources (see Appendix), supportive state and energy market policies, robust

transportation infrastructure, and a trained workforce. Moreover, utility-scale wind 

projects bolster jobs and generate tax revenues that are used to improve schools and other 

public services, which in turn improve the quality of life in rural areas. In addition, local 

landowners receive income in the form of land lease payments from wind turbines 

located on their land.

Estimating the economic development impacts of new energy power plants allows policy 

and decision makers to assess impacts not just on the cost of energy but also on the statelevel jobs and economic growth (Lantz and Tegen 2008). The purpose of this study is to 

capture the impacts of wind energy projects on the Texas economy. We use 1,000 MW of 

wind energy as a baseline because it can be readily scaled to get a sense of the economic 

development opportunities associated with other wind scenarios in the state. Specifically, 

this paper identifies the impact of five wind energy projects (that altogether add up to

approximately 1,000 MW) on the Texas economy during construction and operation.

State-level economic impacts include jobs,

3

This report first provides a description of the methodology and data used in estimating 

the economic impacts of 1,000 MW of wind power in Texas. Next, a discussion and 

interpretation of results are provided. This study does not compare wind to other 

resources or industries, nor does it present net jobs or net economic data. Moreover, it 

does not cover costs or benefits to electricity consumers. It addresses the gross state-level 

jobs and economic activity supported by 1,000 MW of utility-scale wind in Texas. 

land lease payments, property tax revenue, 

and business activity. Special mention is given to the manufacturing potential. Our 

research suggests that on average, wind turbine and component manufacturing accounts 

for approximately 70% of total project cost. Comparing this study’s results with three 

manufacturing scenarios (30%, 50%, and 75% in-state manufacturing) can inform 

policymakers about the economic opportunities that the turbine manufacturing sector 

could bring to Texas. 

 3 This research examined gross jobs supported by new wind development—not net jobs. In some cases, 

workers may have been employed in another industry and switched to the wind industry, or they may have 

had a job in a wind-related industry. As long as the previous industry replaces that person when a worker 

switches jobs, it is still a new job supported by the wind industry. On the other hand, there could be a net 

loss if the job in the prior industry is not replaced. The complex relationships that determine net jobs are 

beyond the scope of the methodology used here.
2

2 Methodology

2.1 The Jobs and Economic Development Impact Model

The Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI)4

This economic relationship between suppliers and producers and producers and 

consumers is embedded in the multipliers. JEDI wind multipliers are a measure of the 

overall change in the economy as a result of building and operating wind power plants. 

The injection of investment in wind power plants triggers several rounds of spending that 

will result in an overall increase in output, employment, and income in the economy. As 

employment and income rise, spending on goods and services also rises (Implan 2004). 

For instance, for each dollar transferred from a wind power developer to the construction 

company, the construction company uses part of that dollar to pay its workers. The 

construction workers then use their income to purchase local goods and services such as 

food at local restaurants, clothing, and haircuts. In this way, money spent on the wind 

project creates a series of transactions that benefit suppliers, service providers, 

restaurants, retail stores, and other sectors of the economy. Consumption patterns, as well 

as output, income, and employment multipliers, are developed by the Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group

model for wind, developed by 

MRG & Associates for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is an input-output 

tool that estimates the number of jobs, salaries, and overall economic activity that will 

likely result from the construction and operation of a wind power project. Input-output 

models like JEDI rely on inter-industry relations in a specific geographic region where 

the output of one industry serves as input for another. For example, a wind farm project 

not only increases demand for wind turbines, but it also increases the demand for 

fabricated metals and other supply inputs. The overall impact in the economy depends on 

the extent by which wind energy project expenditures are spent locally and on the 

relationship between suppliers and producers at the local level (Goldberg et al. 2004). 

5 to estimate the economic impact captured by the JEDI model.6

The JEDI model also uses data and input related to construction costs, operating costs, 

and the percentage of goods and services acquired in the state. This information is used to 

calculate jobs, payroll value, and economic activity level. JEDI estimates economic 

impact results for two distinct periods: construction (considered to last 1 year) and 

operation (recurring annual impacts for the life of the project). These impacts are then 

distributed into three results categories: 

1. Project Development and On-Site Labor Impacts: Jobs pertaining to the 

construction and operation of the wind power plant (e.g., engineers, construction 

workers, managers, lawyers, administrative staff, and wind technicians) and their 

corresponding payroll salaries. 

 4 The JEDI Wind Energy Model can be downloaded at http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/download.html. 

Accessed January 2011.

5 Minnesota IMPLAN Group. www.implan.com. Accessed January 2011. 6 For further information on JEDI model methodology, please visit 

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/jedi/methodology.html. Accessed January 2011.
3

2. Local Revenue, Turbine, and Supply Chain Impacts: The purchase of a wind 

turbine and its components, construction and electrical materials, and parts and 

their second layer of supplier impacts. For instance, when the construction 

company purchases input materials, it uses the outputs of other companies. These 

other companies in turn provide payroll salaries and wages for their workers and 

purchase goods and services from other industries. An example of Local Revenue, 

Turbine, and Supply Chain Impacts is the work of a steel company employee who 

manufactures the materials needed by a wind plant construction worker. Wind 

power projects indirectly support these types of jobs, their salaries, and related 

economic activity.

3. Induced Impacts: Household income expenditures. Income paid to wind industry 

workers is spent on local goods and services that in turn support jobs and provide 

payroll to employees in other sectors. For example, wind industry workers spend 

their paychecks at restaurants and clothing stores, and their consumption supports 

local jobs and local economic activity above and beyond what they would have 

purchased without the extra income from the wind industry. 

Figure 1 shows the ripple effect of wind energy projects based on the three results 

categories of the JEDI model. 

Project Development &

On-Site Labor Impact

Local Revenue, Turbine, 

& Supply Chain Impact Induced Impact

 Construction workers

 Engineers

 Management

 Administrative support

 Cement truck drivers

 Road crews

 Maintenance workers

 Legal 

 Siting and permitting

 Blades, towers, and 

gearboxes

 Boom truck and management

 Supporting businesses such 

as bankers financing the 

project, contractors, 

manufacturers, and equipment 

suppliers

 Hardware store purchases 

support their workers and 

suppliers

 Utilities

Jobs and earning that result 

from spending supported by 

the project, including impacts 

to hotels, restaurants, grocery 

store clerks, retail 

salespeople, child care 

providers, etc. 

Figure 1. Wind energy ripple effect categories from the JEDI model
4

The JEDI wind model contains default data including construction and operating costs 

and the percentage of goods and services acquired in the state (local share) based on 

national averages. However, project-specific data were gathered to attain more localized 

estimates of the economic impact of current wind energy projects in Texas. 

2.2 Research Data and Assumptions

Lists of Texas wind power projects were obtained from the American Wind Energy 

Association (AWEA) and DNV (Det Norske Verita)7

Table 1. Utility-Scale Wind Energy Projects Selected for this Study

databases. These lists contained 

information regarding wind project location, completion status, project size, turbine 

manufacturer, project owner, number of turbines, and turbine size. Using these lists, five

of the largest recent utility-scale wind projects adding up to 1,000 MW (nameplate 

capacity) were selected for this study. These projects were chosen based on the level of 

information obtained from public sources as well as from interviews with developers and 

other wind industry stakeholders. These wind projects are listed in Table 1

Gulf Wind Hackberry Penascal Pyron

S. Trent 

Mesa

Year of Construction 2009 2008 2009 2009 2009

Nameplate Capacity (MW) 283.2 165.6 201.6 249.0 101.2

Turbine Size (KW) 2,400 2,300 2,400 1,500 2,300

Number of Turbines 118 72 84 166 44

Preliminary research for each project consisted of collecting media information and 

corporate press releases. This set of background information provided an indication of the 

construction cost and the economic impacts some of these projects generated in Texas. 

This effort was complemented with a literature review. Then, extensive interviews were 

conducted with developers, manufacturers, construction company workers, lawyers, 

county commissioners, farmers, farmer’s union members, industry experts, and other 

stakeholders to provide further depth to the analysis. Data from interviews included 

construction cost, operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, percentage of goods and 

services acquired in-state, job generation during the construction period, job generation 

during the operation period, land lease payments, tax information, payroll parameters, 

and cost breakdown of different installation and operation categories. 

It is important to note, however, that because JEDI model inputs consist of detailed 

information, often considered proprietary, the amount and quality of the information 

obtained varied from project to project and from interview to interview. Thus, this 

analysis also relies on data extrapolation and literature review. In the absence of project 

data we made general cost assumptions (Table 2), detailed construction cost assumptions 

(Table 3), operating costs assumptions (Table 4), and other parameters (Table 5).

 7 Formerly Global Energy Concepts (GEC).
5

Table 2. Overall Cost Assumptions

Overall Cost Assumptions

 Installed Project Cost ($/kW) $1,650–$2,200

 Operations and Maintenance Cost ($/kW) $25–$30

 Money Value (Dollar Year) 2009

Table 3. Construction Cost Assumptions

Construction % of Total Cost Local Share

Equipment Costs

 Turbines (excluding blades and towers) 47.1% 0%

 Blades 11.0% 0%

 Towers 12.2% 0%

 Transportation 8.4% 0%

 Equipment Total 78.8%

Materials

 Construction (concrete, rebar, equip, roads, site prep) 9.4% 50%–60%

 Transformer 1.3% 0%

 Electrical (drop cable, wire) 1.4% 10%

 HV Line Extension 1.1% 0%

 Materials Subtotal 13.2%

Labor

 Foundation 0.7% 95%

 Erection 0.6% 75%

 Electrical 1.0% 60%

 Management/Supervision 0.6% 30%–50%

 Misc. 2.5% 0%

 Labor Subtotal 5.5%

Other Costs

 HV Sub/Interconnection Materials 0.9% 10%

 HV Sub/Interconnection Labor 0.3% 50%

 Engineering 0.6% 75%

 Legal Services 0.4% 85%

 Land Easements 0.0% 100%

 Site Certificate/Permitting 0.2% 100%

 Other Subtotal 2.5%

Total 100.0%

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
6

Local share refers to the percentage of resources (e.g., labor, materials, supplies, and 

equipment) purchased or acquired in Texas. As we can see from Table 3, this analysis 

assumes that wind turbine manufacturing was imported into the state8 and that 

transportation services were contracted out of the state (reason why local share for 

equipment and transportation is zero). Since manufacturing and transportation are 

assumed to represent 78.8% of total project cost (Figure 2), this would represent a 

leakage of almost 80% in potential job generation and subsequent economic benefits to 

Texas, according to the assumptions made in this study.

Figure 2. Construction cost breakdown assumptions

 8 This might not be the case of current and future projects in the state. 

70.4%

8.4%

13.2%

5.5%

2.5%

Turbine Manufacturing

Transportation

Materials

Labor

Other Costs
7

Table 4. Operating Cost Assumptions

Wind Farm Annual Operating and Maintenance 

Costs

% of Total 

Cost Local Share

Labor

 Field Salaries 9.8% 98%

 Administrative 1.6% 100%

 Management 2.7% 100%

 Labor/Personnel Subtotal 14.1%

Materials and Services

 Vehicles 2.5% 100%

 Site Maint/Misc. Services 1.0% 80%

 Fees, Permits, Licenses 0.5% 100%

 Utilities 1.9% 100%

 Insurance 18.4% 0%

 Fuel (motor vehicle gasoline) 1.0% 100%

 Consumables/Tools and Misc. Supplies 6.2% 100%

 Replacement Parts/Equipment/Spare Parts 54.5% 2%

 Materials and Services Subtotal 85.9%

Total O&M Cost 100.0%

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Table 5. Other Parameters

Other Parameters

Financial Parameters

 Percentage Financed 75%–80%

 Years Financed (term) 10

 Interest Rate 9%–10%

 Percentage Equity 20%–25%

 Corporate Investors (percent of total equity) 100%

 Return on Equity (annual interest rate) 16%

Tax Parameters

Taxes Per MW $7,000-7,300

Land Lease Parameters

 Lease Payment per MW $5,000

Payroll Parameters

 Construction Labor Wage per Hr

 Foundation $20–$25

 Erection $20–$22

 Electrical $25–$28

 Management/Supervision $45–$50

 O&M Labor

 Field Salaries (technicians, other) $22–$26

 Administrative $14–$18

 Management/Supervision $36–$40
8

3 Results

The JEDI model was used to estimate the economic impacts of Texas wind power 

projects. Appropriate adjustments to the model (cost information, local share values, and 

job creation numbers) were made to mirror verified data obtained from interviews. 

Individual economic impacts were then aggregated to reflect combined impacts from 

1,000 MW of wind energy.

Study results show significant economic impacts from 1,000 MW of wind energy 

development in Texas (see Figure 3). Impacts are centered on JEDI model results, which 

include employment, property taxes, landowner revenue, and local economic activity 

during the construction and operation periods (see Table 6). Although no further 

elaboration on additional economic impacts will be provided, it is important to 

acknowledge that new wind power installations offer other tangible (e.g., use tax 

generation, sales tax generation, vendor profits, worker’s taxable income, and 

transmission line impacts) and intangible (e.g., water savings, price stability, and

environmental benefits) benefits that are outside the scope of this study. 

Project Development &

On-Site Labor Impact Local Revenue, Turbine, 

& Supply Chain Impact Induced Impact

Construction Phase: 

• Over 600 FTE jobs

• $55million to local economies

Operational Phase:

• 60 long-term jobs

• $4 million/year to Texas

• $5 million/year in land owner 

revenue

• $7 million/year in 

property taxes

Construction Phase: 

• Over 1,000 FTE jobs

• $140 million to local economies

Operational Phase:

• 100 jobs

• Over $21 million/year to local 

economies

Construction Phase: 

• Over 500 FTE jobs

• Over $65 million to local 

economies

Operational Phase:

• 80 jobs

• Near $10 million/year to 

local economies

Figure 3. Economic ripple effect from 1,000 MW of wind energy in Texas
9

Table 6. Texas Summary Impacts9

Texas Economic Impacts

from 1,000 MW of Wind Energy Development

During Construction • Generated over 2,100 FTE jobs within the State of Texas 

during construction periods

• Generated nearly $260 million in economic activity for Texas 

during the construction period 

During Operating Periods • Currently supports approximately 240 permanent Texas jobs 

• Generates nearly $35 million in annual Texas economic 

activity during operating periods

• Generates more than $7 million in annual property taxes10

• Generates nearly $5 million annually in income for Texas 

landowners who lease their land for wind energy projects 

3.1 Gross Economic Activity 

As previously mentioned, the construction and operation of a wind power plant is the 

catalyst for economic activity in Texas. From rented accommodations that host the influx 

of construction workers to the suppliers and transportation companies that provide

services to the wind farm, wind power development generates a significant impact to the 

state economy.

One thousand megawatts of wind power developed in Texas generated 

approximately $260 million in economic activity during the construction 

phase and approximately $35 million in annual recurring local economic 

activity.

The figures reported include only the portion of transactions that took place in Texas. 

For example, equipment and components that were purchased from other states or other 

countries are treated as monetary leakages and are not included in these figures. This 

study assumes that 1,000 MW of wind energy represents approximately $2 billion in 

investment, which supports nearly $260 million at the state level (without counting for 

manufacturing). This represents approximately $55 million in labor, $140 million in 

construction materials and supply chain equipment, and $65 million in induced activities

(Figure 4). 

 9 Results are provided in $2009 real dollars.

10 See Section 3.3 for more information. 
10

Figure 4. Estimated local spending supported by 1,000 MW of wind energy in Texas during 

project construction

Texas could continue to benefit from these economic development impacts. However, the 

financial crisis has slowed wind project development in the state. Investment and 

infrastructure are needed to continue expansion of wind energy generation. Since wind 

resources are often located at a significant distance from the demand load, new 

transmission capacity is needed to support the growth of wind power generation. For this 

reason, Texas has implemented specific policies that seek to expedite transmission line 

development. State Senate Bill 20 required the designation of Competitive Renewable 

Energy Zones (CREZ) (PUC of Texas—CREZ 2010). These zones would be fasttracked to obtain electrical transmission infrastructure to facilitate the expansion of wind 

energy generation in the state (SECO 2010). This initiative supports the state’s 

renewable portfolio standard of 10 GW of renewable energy by 2025 (Texas Legislature 

2005). In fact, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is investing $8.2 

billion in transmission capacity in the state. Of this investment, $5 billion is intended to 

support approximately 18,000 MW of wind energy (ERCOT 2010). This development 

has the potential to attract economic opportunities including further manufacturing 

development in the state. While beyond the scope of this paper, further analysis into the 

impact of CREZ may prove useful both to further development of wind power generation 

in Texas and in other states.

3.2 Employment Impacts

Most jobs depicted in the first JEDI category (project development and on-site labor) 

require skilled professionals in the fields of engineering, construction, management, and 

manufacturing. These well-paid positions boost economic development in the state.

3.2.1 Construction Jobs

During the construction period (which could take more or less than a year depending on 

the project size, location, and weather conditions), construction workers, engineers, 

surveyors, turbine installers, electrical contractors, administrative employees, and 

managers move to town, boosting local economic activity. Local workers may be 

employed directly on the new wind project, depending on the talent pool and skill set in 

the area. 

$55 Million Labor

$140 Million Construction 

Materials Supply Chain

$65 Million Induced 

Activities
11

According to this research, approximately 75%–80% of construction workers for the 

projects studied were Texas residents. These workers boost Texas economic activity by 

virtue of spending their salary in activities such as mortgage payments, insurance, 

childcare, education, bills, tax payments, family recreation, and clothing. Workers from 

out of state that come to Texas temporarily to build a wind farm generate a different set 

of economic benefits to the state. Compared to in-state workers, temporary out-of-state 

workers support a lower ripple effect in the Texas economy because a greater portion of 

their labor income is sent back to where they are from and does not re-circulate

throughout the Texas economy as most of in-state workers’ compensation does. Most of 

the impacts from out-of-state workers are reduced to lodging, food, beverages, and 

transportation, which are paid for in many cases by the construction company. Hence,

this analysis does not include out-of-state workers.

11

The number of employees working on a wind project depends on the stage of 

construction. The number of workers needed during the initial phase may be significantly 

different from the number of workers needed during peak construction and final stages. 

Thus, this analysis uses a FTE basis to estimate more accurate employment figures. Data 

were obtained on the number of employees and hours worked, and these data were 

translated into FTE12

This research suggests that construction of 1,000 MW of wind power 

development during 2008-2009 supported over 2,100 FTE jobs in Texas.

units. 

Of the near 2,100 in-state jobs, over 600 jobs were on-site workers (project development, 

engineering, construction, and electrical), over 1,000 jobs belonged to the supply chain 

sector (including construction materials and supplies), and over 500 jobs belonged to 

induced sectors of the economy (sectors that benefited from the salary spending of 

construction and supply chain workers, such as restaurant workers, child care providers, 

and retail store workers). 

3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Jobs

When the wind farm goes online, permanent employees are needed to operate and 

maintain the facility during its 20- to 30-year expected life. Technicians can service 

approximately two to three wind turbines per day replacing components, troubleshooting

electrical and mechanical malfunctions, repairing the hydraulic system, and changing 

fluids. The majority of these positions are filled by Texans, or in some cases, by people 

who relocate to Texas. 

According to this study, 1,000 MW of wind energy capacity installed in the 

state of Texas supports approximately 240 permanent jobs.

Of the 240 permanent jobs (during operating periods), approximately 60 were on-site 

positions, 100 were equipment and supply chain sector jobs, and nearly 80 were positions 

in other sectors (e.g., restaurant, hotels, and retail stores).

 11 If out-of-state workers were accounted for, then we would be overestimating the impacts. 12 An FTE of 1 assumes that a person is working full-time (40 hours per week) for an entire year. If three 

different people work 4 months each during a year, that is also considered 1 FTE. 
12

3.3 Property Tax Revenue Impacts

Wind energy projects increase the property tax revenue base in local counties, which in 

turn is used to improve local schools, parks, recreational facilities, community programs, 

fire departments, and other public services. 

Estimating the tax revenue generated by a wind project over its lifetime requires certain 

assumptions and estimates. For instance, it is impossible to know with certainty what a 

given county’s tax rate will be 10 years from now. To discount future tax revenue cash 

flows to present day values also requires an estimate on the time value of money. To 

assess the tax revenue generated by the projects analyzed in this report, we relied on input 

from county tax assessors and tax auditors. To ensure a consistent analysis, we assumed a 

straight-line depreciation of the wind farm over a 20-year period. We then held the 

county tax rate fixed over that time period. Finally, future cash flows were discounted to 

the present using a discount rate of 3% to obtain an estimate of all future cash flows in 

$2009 real dollars. Based on these assumptions and methodology, we concluded that:

One thousand megawatts of wind energy generates approximately 

$7 million in property tax revenue.

Property taxes assessed to wind projects vary on a case-by-case basis. Some projects are 

treated similarly to any other new construction while others are assessed under an 

abatement agreement. The projects analyzed for this report received both standard and 

special case treatment by their county tax assessors.

3.4 Landowner Revenue Impacts

Land leases provide a stable source of income for farmers and ranchers who lease their 

land to wind developers. Most of the land leases in Texas are negotiated as a percentage 

of revenue (royalty) based on power purchase agreements. 

Although wind power projects occupy several acres of land, the actual footprint of the 

wind turbine is small, and because they are spaced far apart, wind energy projects 

generally allow farmers to continue to grow their crops or graze their cattle while the 

turbines are in operation. The actual footprint of land that is disturbed for wind power 

projects ranges from 2% to 5% of total land (DOE 2008). There are other economic 

opportunities for landowners in the form of road access payments (land easements) and 

land lease revenues for O&M buildings and substations. These could be one-time 

payments or annual payments. 

Land lease revenue vary widely in the state, but the average is 

approximately $5,000/MW/year. One thousand megawatts of wind energy 

in Texas generates more than $5 million annually in income for farmers 

and ranchers who lease their land to wind developers.
13

4 Manufacturing Potential

Although Texas currently has a number of wind manufacturing facilities, as shown in 

Figure 5, this study does not account for local turbine manufacturing. We assumed that 

the projects selected for this study imported their turbines, blades, and towers from other 

states and other countries. It is difficult to attribute changes in in-state manufacturing 

activity to in-state project development if in-state manufacturers also sell their products in 

other states. Only material manufacturing (e.g., cement for foundations and electrical 

equipment) for wind plant construction was considered part of the Local Revenue, 

Turbine and Supply Chain Impact category. 

Nevertheless, analysis of the potential economic impacts associated with the production 

of local wind turbines and components provides further insight into the wind industry in 

Texas. Future projects may utilize this Texas-based manufacturing, resulting in an 

incremental increase in economic development impacts.

Figure 5. Texas utility-scale wind energy manufacturing map
14

4.1 Texas Wind Turbine and Component Manufacturing

Texas is now a leader in wind energy manufacturing. A variety of manufacturers 

(including six tower facilities, one blade facility, and a turbine manufacturer) and 

component suppliers support over 1,000 manufacturing jobs in the state. Table 7

provides information on current Texas wind manufacturing facilities and the estimated 

number of people employed by these companies. 

Table 7. Texas Utility-Scale Wind Manufacturing Facilities (Not Exhaustive) 

Company Component Category City Jobs

All-Pro Fasteners Bolts/fasteners Other Arlington 

Alstom Power Turbines Turbines Amarillo 27513

Barr Fabrication Towers Towers Brownwood 100 (2010)14

CAB Incorporated Flanges Other Nacogdoches 20 (2009)15

Composite Technology 

Corporation/TECO 

Westinghouse/DeWind Turbines Turbines Round Rock

20 (2010) (will employ 

approx. 150)

16

Diab Inc. Cores for blades Other Desoto

175 (30 making kits for 

wind)17

EMA Electromecanica Electronics Other Sweetwater 13 (2009)18

Johnson Plate and Tower 

Fabrication Towers Towers El Paso 50 (2010)19

Martifer-Hirschfeld Energy 

Systems Towers Tower San Angelo 225 within three years20

Molded Fiber Glass Blades Blades Gainesville 200 (2009)21

RBC Bearings Bearings Other Houston 85 (2008)22

RTLC Wind Tower Towers Towers MacGregor 75 (could expand to 250)

23

Tower Tech Towers Towers Abilene 90 (2010)24

Trinity Structural Towers Towers Towers Fort Worth 225 (2009)25

Wind Clean Towers Towers Coleman 130 (2008)26

Zarges Aluminum Systems Tower internals Other Amarillo 100 by 201227

Zoltek Composites Other Abilene 70 (2010)28

Data provided by Frank Oteri, NREL

 13 McBride 2010 14 Sheilds 2010 15 Public Citizen 2009 16 Copelin 2010 17 Previty 2009 18 Grainnet 2009 19 Kolenc 2010 20 Collier 2010 21 LaFrance 2009 22 Dawson 2008 23 Morris 2011 24 Adame 2010 25 Public Citizen 2009 26 Northcott 2008 27 Zarges Aluminum Systems 2009 28 Adame 2010
15

4.2 Manufacturing Scenarios

Since this analysis assumes zero local wind turbine manufacturing, we developed a 

sensitivity analysis that compares three manufacturing scenarios with the results from this 

study (Figure 6). All three manufacturing scenarios assume cost and local share 

parameters indicated in Table 3, with the exception of equipment local share information.

The first manufacturing scenario assumes that Texas suppliers provide 30% of turbine 

parts and components needed to support the installation of 1,000 MW of wind energy in 

the state. This scenario also assumes 30% of local transportation. Similarly, the second 

and third scenarios assume 50% and 75% of local turbine manufacturing and 

transportation services, respectively. 

Figure 6. Manufacturing scenarios and associated job impacts during construction 

As Figure 6 indicates, even 30% of in-state manufacturing has a significant impact on 

potential job generation in the state’s economy. This level of manufacturing not only 

increases the number of turbine manufacturing and supply chain jobs, but it also supports 

a higher number of induced jobs29

 29 Induced jobs refer to employment in other sectors of the economy, such as restaurants, retail stores, and 

hospitals. 

because more workers are able to spend their income 

on a variety of activities that generate and support employment opportunities in a variety 

of sectors. Hence, the results from this first scenario more than doubles the magnitude of

construction period jobs estimated in this study to approximately 5,300. A 50% in-state 

wind manufacturing scenario would more than triple the total number of jobs reported in

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III

Study Results 30% Manufacturing50% Manufacturing75% Manufacturing

On-site Jobs Turbine Manufacturing and Supply Chain Jobs Induced Jobs

Number of Jobs
16

this study during the construction period to over 7,400 jobs, and a 75% in-state 

manufacturing scenario more than quadruples our initial job results, providing job 

opportunities to almost 10,000 Texans. 

The largest economic development driver in the wind industry is manufacturing (Lantz 

and Tegen 2008). That is mainly because wind energy manufacturing accounts for almost

70% of the total project cost (Figure 2). The expanded wind development in the state has 

lead to an expanded in-state manufacturing, but a stronger wind manufacturing base 

could provide further economic opportunities to Texas. 
17

5 Conclusion

One thousand megawatts of new wind power generation has myriad effects on the Texas 

economy. Direct and indirect economic impacts ripple through the state economy 

providing jobs, tax revenue, and land lease payments to communities. Based on this 

analysis, 1,000 MW of wind energy development supports 2,100 FTE jobs and 240 

permanent jobs in the state of Texas. It also supports nearly $260 million in economic 

activity for Texas during the construction period and approximately $35 million per year 

during the operating period. 

The burgeoning wind sector also stimulates a secondary supply chain ripple as wind 

industry participants set up shops in the state. While outside the scope of this analysis, 

this second wave carries with it additional economic benefits associated with training 

workers, exporting goods outside of the state, fostering research and development 

facilities, and developing leading edge technologies and capabilities.

Wind energy manufacturing is the largest economic development driver in the wind 

industry because it has the potential to provide significantly more jobs and associated 

economic benefits compared to other wind activities. Supporting local ownership of 

manufacturing facilities, as well as local use of labor and materials, can provide further 

opportunities for diversification and growth. 
18

References

Adame, J. (January 2010). “Tower Tech Lays Off About 15 without Advanced Notice.” 

Abilene Reporter-News. http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/jan/25/tower-techlays-about-15/. Accessed February 2011.

Adame, J. (April 2010). “Zoltek Deals with Worker Health-Related Issues.” Abilene 

Reporter-News. http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/apr/10/workers-detail-lack-ofproper-health-protocol/. Accessed February 2011.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). (April 2011). “AWEA First Quarter 2011 

Market Report.” http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/reports/upload/1QMarket-Report_-Public.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2011.

Collier, K. (January 2010). “Cornyn, Leaders Tour New Martifer Plant.” San Angelo 

Development Corporation. http://www.sanangelodevelopment.com/node/540. Accessed 

February 2011.

Copelin, L. (March 2010). “Austin Wind Company in Center of Storm Over Stimulus 

Jobs.” Statesman. http://www.statesman.com/business/austin-wind-company-in-centerof-storm-over-394475.html?printArticle=y. Accessed February 2011.

Dawson, J. (November 2008). “Manufacturer Finds it Bearings in Houston.” Houston 

Business Journal. 

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2008/11/03/story3.html?s=print. Accessed 

February 2011. 

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). (July 2010). “2009 Annual Report.” 

http://www.ercot.com/content/news/presentations/2010/2009%20ERCOT%20Annual%2

0Report.pdf. Accessed November 2010.

Goldberg, M.; Sinclair, K.; Milligan, M. (March 2004). “Job and Economic Development 

Impact (JEDI) Model: A User-Friendly Tool to Calculate Economic Impacts from Wind 

Projects.” Prepared for the 2004 Global WINDPOWER Conference, March 2004.

NREL/CP-500-35953. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 12 pp. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35953.pdf. Accessed November 2010.

Grainnet. (June 2009). “Argentina-Based EMA Electromecanica S.A. to Locate 

Manufacturing Facility in Sweetwater, TX.”

http://www.grainnet.com/articles/argentina_based_ema_electromecanica_s_a__to_locate

_manufacturing_facility_in_sweetwater__tx-76807.html. Accessed February 2011.

Kolenc, V. (January 2010). “Wind Tower Production: Canutillo Factory is Ready to 

Meet Demand.” El Paso Times.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3805023. Accessed 

February 2011.
19

La France, C. (22 July 2009). Email correspondence. Molded Fiber Glass, Gainesville, 

TX.

Lantz, E.; Tegen, S. (July 2008). “Variables Affecting Economic Development of Wind 

Energy.” Prepared for WINDPOWER 2008, June 2008. NREL/CP-500-43506. Golden, 

CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 30 pp. 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43506.pdf. Accessed November 2010.

McBride, J. (January 2010). “$12.5M to Lure Firm.” Amarillo Globe News. 

http://amarillo.com/stories/010710/new_news1.shtml. Accessed February 2011.

Minnesota Implan Group, Inc. (Implan). (2004). Analysis Guide. Implan Professional. 

Version 2.0.

Morris, J. (2011). “Manufacturing Thrives Here.” Heart of Texas. 

http://www.imagesheartoftexas.com/content/manufacturing-thrives-here-0. Accessed 

February 2011.

Northcott, K. (June 2008). “A Good Day for Flying Steel.” Texas Co-op Power. 

http://www.texascooppower.com/energy/technology-renewables/technologyrenewables/a-good-day-for-flying-steel. Accessed February 2011.

Previty, C. (July 2009). Phone interview. Diab Inc., Desoto, TX.

Public Citizen. (March 2009). “Wind Energy Delivers Jobs Throughout Texas.” 

http://www.cleanenergyfortexas.org/downloads/wind_energy_jobs_tx_32309.pdf.

Accessed February 2011

Public Utility Commission of Texas—CREZ Transmission Program Information Center

(PUC of Texas—CREZ). (2010). “Program Overview.” 

http://www.texascrezprojects.com/overview.aspx. Accessed November 2010.

Shields, C. (June 2010). “Location, Work Force Keys to Success.” Texas Rising. 

http://www.texasahead.org/texasrising/tr1006. Accessed February 2011.

State Energy Consevation Office (SECO). (2010). “Texas Renewable Portfolio 

Standard.” http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_rps-portfolio.htm. Accessed November 

2010.

Texas Legislature. (2005). Senate Bill 20. Legislative session 79, first session (September 

1, 2005). 

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillSummary.aspx?LegSess=791&Bill=SB20. 

Accessed November 2010.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (July 2008). “20% Wind Energy by 2030 –

Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply.” DOE/GO-102008-

2567. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf. Accessed June 22, 

2011.
20

Wind Powering America. (2010). “Texas Wind Map and Resource Potential.” 

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=tx. Accessed 

January 2011.

World Wind Energy Association (WWEA). (2010).

http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=

21&Itemid=4. Accessed November 2010.

Zarges Aluminum Systems. (Febraury 2009). “Zarges Aluminum Systems Announces 

Texas Manufacturing Facility.” Press release. 

http://www.mccallumsweeney.com/uploads/NEWS-133-09-

Zarges%20News%20Texas%20Plant_02_04_09.pdf. Accessed February 2011.
21 

Appendix

Figure A-1. Texas average annual wind speed at 80 m

Source: Wind Powering America 2010