Nevada County Population Projections 2015 to 2034

Transcription

1 Nevada County Population Projections 2015 to 2034 Prepared By: Jeff Hardcastle, AICP Nevada State Demographer Nevada Department of Taxation Reno Office: 4600 Kietzke Lane, Building L Suite 235 Reno, NV (Direct) (775) (Phone) (775) (Fax) (775) jhardcastle@tax.state.nv.us Carson Office: 1550 College Parkway, Suite115 Carson City, NV (Phone) (775) (Fax) (775) October 1, 2015

2 Table of Contents Introduction to the 2015 Population Projections The Context of the 2015 Annual Population Projections s in the Carson City, Lyon, and Washoe Counties Projections Population Projections for Nevada s Counties 2015 to Appendix Table 1 - Baseline Estimated Employment for 2014 and Projected Employment for 2015 to 2034 by County Appendix Table 2 - Estimated Employment for 2014 and Projected Employment Including Tesla for 2015 to 2034 For Selected Counties Appendix Table 3 -Baseline Projection of Annual Average Wage Rates By Sector Estimated for 2014 and Wage Rates 2015 to 2034 (reported in current dollars) Appendix Table 4 - s in Annual Average Wage Rates By Sector Estimated for 2014 and Projected Wage Rates 2015 to 2034 (reported in current dollars) for Selected Counties Impacted By Tesla Appendix Table 5 - Natural Increase in Population From the Baseline REMI Projection for All Counties and Total Projection for Selected Counties Impacted by Tesla Appendix Table 6 - Total Migration in Baseline REMI Projection for All Counties and Projected Totals for Selected Counties Impacted by Tesla Appendix Table 7 - Labor Force Population in Baseline REMI Projection for All Counties and Projected Labor Force Population for Selected Counties Impacted by Tesla Appendix Table 8 - Overall Labor Force Participation Rates From the Baseline REI Projection and Overall Rates for Selected Counties Impacted by Tesla Appendix Table 9 - Projected Population Age 5 to 19 From Baseline REI Projection for All Counties and Projected Total Population Age 5 to 19 for Selected Counties Impacted By Tesla

3 1 Introduction to the 2015 Population Projections A draft version of the population projections was developed over the summer and circulated to local governments on August 31 for their comments. The summary table of those projections and the narrative about them (with revisions for the projections and to be part of this document) begin on Page 16. Since then there have been minor revisions to the projections. Following this introduction and the discussion of the initial draft, there is a discussion of the change from the 2014 to 2015 projections for Carson City, Lyon, and Washoe Counties, the detailed population tables and detailed tables in the appendices. The Regional Economics Models, Inc. (REMI) model was used for these projections. The model that was used provides information for all 17 counties by 23 major economic sectors. It looks at the dynamic economic and demographic relationships between the 17 counties and the United States as a total. The 20 year projections are produced annually and change as more historical data becomes available or is revised. The supplemental tables in the appendices are from the REMI model including projections for the population from the age of 5 to 19. These tables are provided to aid local governments and economic development officials. Results are reported for a baseline forecast, that is, without including Tesla, and for the five counties likely to see the greatest impact information is presented to show what the additional impact of Tesla may be on those counties. These tables should not be considered definitive estimates or projections. For instance, the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation produces projections and this office also produces the Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin (ASRHO) Estimates and Projections. Nevada s Recent Economic and Demographic History: The following four tables explore Nevada s recent history. The first table compares Nevada s employment since its peak in 2007 through June 2015 to the country as a whole as well as the states immediately bordering Nevada. Since the bottom of jobs losses, Nevada has regained jobs at a faster rate than the surrounding states with the exception of Utah. That being said, in looking at the monthly current employment data, the state has yet to regain the total number of jobs that were lost during the downturn. Table 1. Comparison of Nevada Job s to Surrounding States and United States Total From Peak Employment to June 2015 For Total Non-Farm Employment State Nevada Arizona California Idaho Oregon Utah US Total Peak Date May-07 Oct-07 Jul-07 Jun-07 Dec-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Peak Employment 1,297,500 2,686,300 15,454, ,500 1,737,800 1,265, ,365,000 Bottom Employment Sep-10 Sep-10 Feb-10 Jan-10 Feb-10 Feb-10 Feb-10 Date Bottom Employment 1,111,200 2,372,800 14,121, ,500 1,590,300 1,173, ,649,000 Bottom Less Peak -186, ,500-1,333,000-59, ,500-92,200-8,716,000 Years from Peak to Bottom Percent Loss -14.4% -11.7% -8.6% -9.0% -8.5% -7.3% -6.3% Employment as of 1,257,100 2,611,600 16,068, ,200 1,771,500 1,381, ,870,000 June 2015 Jobs Gained - June 2015 less Bottom 145, ,800 1,947,100 73, , ,200 12,221,000 Percent of Lost Jobs Recovered 78.3% 76.2% 146.1% 124.9% 122.8% 225.8% 140.2% Years from Bottom To June

4 Table 1. Comparison of Nevada Job s to Surrounding States and United States Total From Peak Employment to June 2015 For Total Non-Farm Employment State Nevada Arizona California Idaho Oregon Utah US Total Annual Percent Growth From Bottom 2.6% 2.0% 2.4% 2.2% 2.0% 3.1% 1.7% 2 Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics: Current Employment Series - Seasonally Adjusted Another way to look at the local economy is by calculating a location quotient. A location quotient looks at a local economy in comparison to a larger regional economy or the national economy. For example, if manufacturing were to make up 10% of the national economy and 12% of a state s economy, the location quotient would be 1.2 (12%/10%). A location quotient greater than 1.0 is considered to be an export industry and 1.0 or less is considered to be an economic sector primarily serving the local economy. Table 2. Nevada Location Quotients for Selected Years for Nevada Using North American Industrial Classification System Categories North American Industrial Classification Category Housing Peak Peak Employment Bottom Employment Difference Less st Year of NAICS Most Recent Available Data Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Professional and technical services Management of companies and enterprises Administrative and waste services Educational services Health care and social assistance Transportation and warehousing Information Finance and insurance Real estate and rental and leasing Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Unclassified Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Location Quotient Calculator

5 3 Several industrial sectors have a 2014 location quotient higher than one: mining; construction; management of companies and enterprises; administrative and waste services; transportation and warehousing; real estate and rental and leasing; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food services. The biggest gain where a sector moved into being considered an export sector was the management of companies and enterprises. Mining s location quotient has gone down slightly since Even though mining s share of employment increased from 1.05% in 2001 to 1.37% in 2014, it also increased nationally from 0.49% to 0.73%, which reduced Nevada s relative advantage in the sector. It should be noted that the mining category captures a number of activities including oil and gas production and support services. The location quotient in Nevada for mining, except oil and gas, was 4.87 in 2001 and 6.78 in 2014 before the drop in mineral prices. The location quotient for support services for mining was 0.36 in 2001 and 0.41 in More detailed information for the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector and the accommodation and food services sector illustrates the importance of these sectors to Nevada and the changes that are happening to them. In 2014, 335,832 or almost 32% of all employees counted in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages were employed in these two sectors. That was an increase of 10% from 2001 when the number of employees was 303,974. Nationally, excluding Nevada, the combined employment in these two sectors grew by 23% from 11,580,992 in 2001 to 14,290,724 in The location quotient for amusements, gambling, and recreation, a more specific subsector, went from 2.14 in 2001 to 1.57 in 2014 and for accommodations it went from to Food services and drinking places went from 0.95 in 2001 to 1.14 in This could be due to an increase of non-hotel eating establishments either on onsite or in other locations in Nevada s communities. Table 3. Average Annual Pay For 2007 and 2014 for Nevada, Bordering States, and the US State Income in 2007 Dollars 2014 Less 2007 in 2007 Dollars Percentage Difference Nevada $42,149 $44,727 $39,174 -$2,975-7% Arizona $41,551 $46,919 $41,093 -$458-1% California $50,538 $59,042 $51,711 $1,173 2% Idaho $33,544 $37,982 $33,266 -$278-1% Oregon $39,569 $46,529 $40,752 $1,183 3% Utah $37,054 $42,942 $37,610 $556 2% US Total $44,458 $51,364 $44,986 $528 1% Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Total All Industries In terms of wage growth, there have been gains in Nevada s nominal annual average pay. In terms of constant dollars, Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada have seen loses in wages, with Nevada losing the most from 2007 to While Nevada s economy has been diversifying as shown in Table 2 location quotient analysis, it has not yet fully regained all the jobs lost since Even so, migration has been picking up in recent years for Clark and Washoe Counties. This has possibly been due to the diversification that has gone on such as in health care, educational services, and the management sectors. This may have acted as a pull factor for migration while average wages have decreased. The following table shows the Census Bureau s estimates of the components of how Nevada s population has changed since Table 4 shows the estimates from the Census Bureau for Nevada, Clark and Washoe Counties, and the Balance of the State. It was estimated that there was net domestic out-migration in 2009 through 2011 for the state. There continued to be net international migration estimated during this time frame. Net international migration is made up of four components: Net international migration of the foreign born; Net migration between the United States and Puerto Rico; Net migration of natives to and from the United States; and Net movement of the Armed Forces population between the United States and overseas ( The estimate for the net migration of the foreign born is estimated from data from the American Community Survey. Table 4. Estimates of Nevada's Components of Population 2007 to 2014 Year Natural Increase Births Deaths Domestic Migration International Migration ,735 40,584 18,849 40,821 11, ,822 40,622 18,800 15,325 10, ,345 39,774 19,429-3,425 9, ,698 39,605 19,907-12,960 9, ,637 35,843 20,206-7,665 7,446 Nevada

6 Table 4. Estimates of Nevada's Components of Population 2007 to 2014 Year Natural Increase Births Deaths Domestic Migration International Migration ,296 34,706 20,410 14,463 7, ,820 35,075 21,255 13,188 8, ,451 35,153 21,702 23,623 8, ,095 4,146 3,051 4, ,149 4,200 3, ,895 3, ,777 2,992-1, ,599 3,211-2, ,401 3, ,507 3, ,635 3, ,464 30,193 12,729 33,485 8, ,704 30,361 12,657 14,111 8, ,810 29,969 13,159-1,171 7, ,213 29,785 13,572-12,079 7, ,261 26,875 13,614-5,499 6, ,306 26,101 13,795 12,258 6, ,583 26,181 14,598 10,886 7, ,215 26,178 14,963 20,261 7, ,176 6,245 3,069 3,307 1, ,969 6,061 3,092 1,380 1, ,664 5,910 3,246-1,399 1, ,700 6,043 3, , ,988 5,369 3, ,840 5,204 3,364 1, ,889 5,387 3,498 2, ,812 5,340 3,528 3, Source: Census Bureau Population Estimates Program: Annual Resident Population Estimates, Estimated Components of Resident Population, and Rates of the Components of Resident Population for States and Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010 and County Totals Dataset: Population, Population and Estimated Components of Population : April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014 Balance of State Clark Washoe Even while Nevada was losing jobs from 2007 to 2010, it was still growing through natural increase and net international migration. With sustained job growth, Nevada may see more people living in the State and returning to the labor force and less migration. However, both for the state and nation the long term projection is for a lower level of labor for participation. What follows is the current report that contains a summary table for the projections as well as a discussion of general differences between the 2014 and 2015 population projections. The Context of the 2015 Annual Population Projections Beginning in 2011, the State Demographer and the Department of Taxation were required to produce annual population projections by October 1 for a 20 year time frame by county. The current projections were prepared with the 1.7 version of the REMI model which contained historic data from 1990 through The growth rates from that model are applied to the 2014 Certified Population Estimates to produce the population projections. Projections are attached at the end of this document. For the most part, this document reports information at the state level for discussing changes to the model. The individual county projections are provided for your review and comment. There are two sets of tables presented beginning on Page 16, one representing a baseline forecast without Tesla and Switch locating to Northwestern Nevada and one including their impact. The REMI model looks at the relationship across all of the counties so the impacts from Tesla ripple through not just Northwestern Nevada but the rest of the state as well as commuting and trade-flows are included in the model. 4

7 Over time, as these projections have been produced Nevada and the nation as a whole continue to recover from the housing bubble, the spike in energy prices, and the financial crisis. As such each year s projections will vary as economic and demographic relationship continue to change over time. Table 5 shows the projections for 2030 for the four previous annual projections and the current ones. The 2011 projection did not include information from the 2010 Census in the 2010 estimate. If it did, the projection would have been 3,340,507 or 23,196 fewer people for As more information becomes available and the dynamics of the nation and our local communities change, Nevada continues to see growth for the state as a whole but at a lower level. This varies by county. Table 5. Comparing Nevada's Annual Population Projections for 2030 Year Projection Released Projection for ,363, ,338, ,222, ,251, ,236,054 5 As shown above, in comparing 2030, a year all the projections share in common, there are differences between each set of projections. Table 6 looks at 2033 as the year that both the 2014 Final Projections and the 2015 Projections have in common to provide information about the differences by county. Additional information further elaborates on the differences between the two versions going out to 2034 for statewide totals. Those tables and discussion about them are after Table 6 and the discussion that accompanies it. As stated, Table 6 compares the 2014 projection and the 2015 projection for 2033, the last year they have in common. Statewide, both show growth over the next 20 years. The 2014 projection showed an increase of 528,107 and the 2015 projection shows an increase of 468,768 by Table 6. Comparison of Projections for 2033 from the final 2014 Issued Projections and the final 2015 Issued Projections 2013 Estimate 2014 Projection for Projection for 2033 Less 2013 Estimate 2015 Projection for Projection for 2033 Less 2013 Estimate Difference 2015 Projection Less 2014 Projection For 2033 Carson City 54,668 69,965 15,297 59,302 4,634-10,663 Churchill 25,322 31,563 6,241 31,470 6, Clark 2,031,723 2,360, ,379 2,396, ,535 36,156 Douglas 48,478 49,717 1,239 50,558 2, Elko 53,384 57,689 4,305 53, ,706 Esmeralda Eureka 2,024 2, , Humboldt 17,457 18, ,228-2,229-2,956 Lander 6,343 5, , Lincoln 5,020 5, , Lyon 52,960 73,415 20,455 62,959 9,999-10,456 Mineral 4,662 4, ,750 1,088 1,094 Nye 44,749 48,879 4,130 45, ,259

8 Table 6. Comparison of Projections for 2033 from the final 2014 Issued Projections and the final 2015 Issued Projections 2013 Estimate 2014 Projection for Projection for 2033 Less 2013 Estimate 2015 Projection for Projection for 2033 Less 2013 Estimate 6 Difference 2015 Projection Less 2014 Projection For 2033 Pershing 6,882 7, , Storey 4,017 4, , Washoe 432, , , ,176 82,852-64,571 White Pine 10,095 8,103-1,992 7,810-2, State Total 2,800,967 3,329, ,107 3,269, ,768-59,339 Statewide, the projections are 59,339 or 1.8% fewer people than last year s projections. Part of this is because there are two additional years of economic history in the 1.7 REMI model, going to 2013 instead of 2011 compared to the 1.5 version that was used for the 2014 projections. There was a substantial revision of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data as well as a new national forecast of population from the Census Bureau included in the 1.7 version of the model as discussed below. The historic BEA data was revised downward and the Census Bureau s national projection was slightly lowered. The user can update REMI to reflect local information. The assumptions that were included allowed for Tesla and Switch in Northern Nevada as well as assuming that mining employment does not fall below its historic average employment for 1990 through Mining employment was increased by 280 in Elko County to include the Lone Canyon Mine for 2017 through The Nevada Copper Mine in Lyon County was not included at this time because of additional financing not yet being secured (See Federal Land Conveyance Complete at Nevada Copper's Pumpkin Hollow Project Accessed 8/31/2015.). Hotel growth in Clark County was assumed to grow at 0.5% beyond the projects currently under construction (See the Construction Bulletin Report at The REMI model and changes to it The REMI model which underlies these projections comes with an out of the box (OOB) projection for both the nation as a whole and the 17 counties in Nevada. Adjustments are made to the model to produce the projections and the growth rates from those projections are applied to the most recent population estimates for Nevada s counties. The user can adjust the national as well as the set of local projections. Table 7 compares the national out of the box models for the 2014 and the 2015 projections. The OOB projections have substantial differences between the national forecasts in the 1.7 model and the 1.5 version. The 1.5 model was used for the 2014 projections. Table 7 shows there are several key differences between the 1.5 and 1.7 models: The 1.7 model s forecast has lower job growth as its middle forecast; The GDP forecast is not out of line with the recent August 2015 forecast by the Congressional Budget Office; Manufacturing employment is not only lower in the 1.7 model but the loss of manufacturing jobs since 2001 is greater than in the 1.5 model; There is less labor force participation; Given the jobs to labor force ratio, it looks like fewer people are working multiple jobs; and An older population is projected compared to the version of the model. All of this creates a scenario that is not only showing less growth over the time frame but also decreases the likelihood of migration as an older population tends to be less mobile.

9 Table 7. Comparison of REMI Out of the Box National Forecasts for 1.5 and 1.7 Models to Category Forecast Total Employment 165,510, ,519, ,277, ,346, % Private Non-Farm Employment 139,299, ,308, ,451, ,013, % Manufacturing Employment 46,158 46,318 44,286 37, % Population 284,968, ,968, ,334, ,571, % Labor Force Population 217,473, ,473, ,102, ,070, % Labor Force 143,917, ,917, ,967, ,885, % Labor Force Participation Rate 66.2% 66.2% 61.8% 60.5% -2.1% Ratio of Jobs to Labor Force % Gross Domestic Product Billions of $12,515,200 $12,886,898 $26,501,030 $24,839, % Fixed (2009) Dollars Real Disposable Personal Income $9,175,200 $9,145,557 $19,485,110 $19,286, % Billions of Fixed (2009) Dollars Population Ages ,451,410 60,451,410 66,544,086 64,067, % Ages ,214,398 40,214,399 43,717,363 42,972, % Ages ,018, ,018, ,198, ,021, % Ages ,291,688 35,291,686 76,874,320 78,509, % Total 284,975, ,975, ,334, ,571, % 7 The following set of related tables, 8A to 8C, show the national forecasts, the state forecasts, and the Nevada share of the national forecasts as a way of summarizing the impact of the data revisions on our projected growth. Table 8A shows the national projection scenarios used in the 2014 and 2015 projections after updates were made to include changes in national employment for 2011 to 2014 (Version 1.5) and 2013 to 2015 (Version 1.7). Both historic rates of changes as well as recent history are lower in the current 1.7 model. For 2010 to 2014, the annual average was 1.5% in the 1.5 (2014) model compared to 1.8% in the 1.7 model. Also, in the later years the average growth rate for the five year intervals between 2014 and 2034 is lower, 2.0% compared to 4.2%. Table 8A. National Projection Scenario for 2014 (1.5) and 2015 (1.7) Projections National Population National Employment Model Version 1.5 Model Version 1.7 Model Version 1.5 Model Version Percentage Growth 1.7 Percentage Growth ,968, ,968, ,510, ,519, ,625, ,625, ,063, ,159, % -0.2% ,107, ,107, ,019, ,026, % 0.5% ,805, ,805, ,026, ,036, % 1.8% ,516, ,516, ,551, ,557, % 2.1% ,379, ,379, ,124, ,123, % 2.1% ,231, ,231, ,899, ,885, % 2.1% ,093, ,093, ,644, ,645, % -0.1% ,771, ,771, ,225, ,243, % -3.0% ,330, ,326, ,626, ,044, % -0.7% ,591, ,582, ,834, ,286, % 1.9% ,864, ,873, ,102, ,846, % 1.5% ,162, ,128, ,812, ,278, % 1.9% ,480, ,391, ,503, ,783, % 1.9% ,318, ,116, ,298, ,919, % 5.5% ,341, ,255, ,732, ,616, % 0.9% ,169, ,322, ,501, ,901, % 0.1% ,334, ,571, ,646, ,629, % 1.4% Table 8B shows the historic data for 2001 to 2014 for Nevada and the rates of change for employment. Not only was the

10 loss of employment in 2009 and 2010 deeper in the revised data from BEA, the recovery was slower in 2012 than was estimated in the 2015 projections. That estimation was done by reviewing the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data for 2013 and 2014 and updating the BEA data to reflect the changes at that time. As with the national forecast, Nevada is projected to grow more slowly from 2014 to 2034, at 2.1% rather than 5.1% per five year period. The 1.9% growth rate in the 1.7 Model for the period from 2010 to 2014 and the projected 2.1% growth rate are similar to the national economy s historic and projected performance. Part of the slower growth nationally and a loss of jobs in Nevada are national trends in a number of industrial groups, most notably a loss in retail employment during the 2024 to 2029 period. Table 8B. Nevada Final Projection Scenario for 2014 (1.5) and 2015 (1.7) Nevada Population Nevada Employment Model Version 1.5 Model Version 1.7 Model Version 1.5 Model Version Percentage Growth 1.7 Percentage Growth ,098,399 2,098,399 1,270,341 1,285, ,173,791 2,173,791 1,293,307 1,300, % 1.2% ,248,850 2,248,850 1,347,622 1,356, % 4.3% ,346,222 2,346,222 1,438,668 1,446, % 6.7% ,432,143 2,432,143 1,530,525 1,539, % 6.4% ,522,658 2,522,658 1,606,467 1,612, % 4.8% ,601,072 2,601,072 1,650,973 1,653, % 2.5% ,653,630 2,653,630 1,620,464 1,629, % 1.5% ,684,665 2,684,665 1,517,611 1,523, % 6.5% ,704,283 2,703,230 1,484,312 1,483, % 2.7% ,723,322 2,717,951 1,498,809 1,507, % 1.6% ,750,941 2,754,354 1,527,110 1,523, % 1.1% ,773,370 2,790,136 1,559,154 1,559, % 2.4% ,800,967 2,820,119 1,596,432 1,598, % 2.5% ,936,392 2,977,934 1,755,141 1,731, % 8.3% ,066,534 3,113,329 1,820,600 1,742, % 0.7% ,194,924 3,197,360 1,881,511 1,725, % 1.0% ,323,007 3,252,208 1,943,956 1,735, % 0.6% 8 Table 8C completes the comparison of the Nevada and National Projections by looking at the state s share of national population and employment. While both projections are similar for Nevada s share of population and employment in the later year s, Nevada is projected to have a smaller share of the nation s employment but there is not much difference in the share of the national population. Table 8C. Nevada's Share of the National Historic and Forecasted Population and Employment 1.5 Population 1.7 Population 1.5 Total Employment 1.7 Total Employment % 0.74% 0.77% 0.78% % 0.76% 0.78% 0.79% % 0.78% 0.81% 0.82% % 0.80% 0.85% 0.86% % 0.82% 0.89% 0.89% % 0.85% 0.91% 0.92% % 0.86% 0.92% 0.92% % 0.87% 0.90% 0.91% % 0.88% 0.87% 0.87% % 0.87% 0.85% 0.86% % 0.87% 0.85% 0.86% % 0.88% 0.85% 0.85% % 0.88% 0.86% 0.86% % 0.89% 0.87% 0.86%

11 Table 8C. Nevada's Share of the National Historic and Forecasted Population and Employment 1.5 Population 1.7 Population 1.5 Total Employment 1.7 Total Employment % 0.90% 0.88% 0.88% % 0.91% 0.88% 0.88% % 0.90% 0.89% 0.87% % 0.89% 0.89% 0.87% 9 Table 9 looks at manufacturing in the Reno-Carson City-Fernley Combined Statistical Area. There are two ways for the user to adjust the REMI model. One is to update the model with more recent information that becomes available when a newer version is released. This is referred to as updating the model and can be done at the national and local level. At the national level, more recent data may be available through the Current Employment Statistics data than is available at the local level through the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data. The national update is done separately and provides information about what the economy would look like if there was no new local information. With either data set, the user adjusts the model to reflect known historic information. The other way to adjust the model is to insert known information about the future. For the current projections that means inserting information on Tesla and Switch. In both the 1.5 and 1.7 models, manufacturing jobs are lost; this is reflecting the national trend of economic gains being made by technology that increases worker productivity. The current (1.7) projections show a greater loss in manufacturing over time with both the national and local employment updates in comparison to the 1.5 model s projections. However, while the loss is greater, the impact of Tesla both for increasing manufacturing jobs in the region through agglomeration as well increasing worker productivity is greater than what was projected in last year s projection. Table 9. Manufacturing Employment (Total Number of Jobs) for the Reno-Carson City-Fernley Combined Statistical Area National Employment Update Local Employment Update Tesla Year ,450 22,286 22,450 22,286 22,450 22, ,460 21,763 19,460 21,763 19,460 21, ,145 21,622 19,145 21,622 19,145 21, ,505 22,449 22,505 22,449 22,505 22, ,414 22,502 22,414 22,502 22,414 22, ,110 22,753 23,110 22,753 23,110 22, ,763 23,583 23,763 23,583 23,763 23, ,717 22,676 22,717 22,676 22,717 22, ,343 19,260 19,343 19,260 19,343 19, ,651 18,576 18,651 18,576 18,651 18, ,842 18,867 18,842 18,867 18,842 18, ,842 19,146 19,171 19,146 19,171 19, ,001 19,928 20,036 19,928 20,034 19, ,931 20,123 19,949 20,228 19,945 20, ,521 18,717 20,527 18,798 27,807 28, ,240 17,580 20,195 17,648 27,384 26, ,270 16,683 20,200 16,741 27,316 25, ,271 16,294 20,179 16,346 27,271 25, Less ,179 5,992 2,271 5,940 4,821 3,014 Difference from National Employment Update for ,000 9, Output Per Worker (Fixed $276,990 $276,990 $276,990 $229,380 $229,380 $229, $) 2034 Output Per Worker (Fixed 2009 $) $621,990 $548,177 $625,850 $548,104 $582,120 $604,108

12 Finally, Table 10 compares the 2015 (model version1.7) projection to the final 2014 (model version 1.5) Nevada projection for the same key indicators that were reported for the national scenario in Table 2. For Nevada, the key differences between the 1.7 and 1.5 models: 10 As with the national forecast, the 1.7 model s forecast has lower job growth; Unlike the national forecast, manufacturing employment is lower in the 1.7 model but contrary to the national forecast, manufacturing is flat instead of showing a loss over time; As with the national forecast there is less labor force participation; Given the jobs to labor force ratio, it looks like fewer people are working multiple jobs; and The population is slightly smaller but older compared to the version of the model. Table 10. Comparison of Nevada Forecasts for 1.5 and 1.7 Models After Adjustments Category to Forecast Total Employment 1,285,134 1,270,341 1,943,956 1,735, % Private Non-Farm 1,144,308 1,129,507 1,772,525 1,572, % Employment Manufacturing Employment 46,318 46,158 52,688 46, % Population 2,098,399 2,098,399 3,323,007 3,252, % Labor Force Population 1,595,153 1,595,159 2,637,487 2,631, % Labor Force 1,101,021 1,101,021 1,604,583 1,594, % Labor Force Participation 69.0% 69.0% 60.8% 60.6% -0.3% Rate Ratio of Jobs to Labor Force % Gross Domestic Product Billions of $96,822 $96,890 $217,820 $194, % Fixed (2009) Dollars Real Disposable Personal Income $64,736 $67,530 $158,160 $148, % Billions of Fixed (2009) Dollars Population Ages , , , , % Ages , , , , % Ages ,141,668 1,141,668 1,648,555 1,617, % Ages , , , , % s in the Carson City, Lyon, and Washoe Counties Projections In last year s (2014) projections, Carson City, Lyon, and Washoe Counties were projected to grow by 183,175, and in the current projections they are expected to grow by 97,485 or 13.5% from 2013 to In both projections, there is in inclusion of Tesla s impact and in 2015 the impact of Switch as well. The following is an examination of what is leading to that difference between the two projections both in terms of population as well as for employment. The overall job impact for the Reno-Carson City-Fernley Combined Statistical Area was projected to be 13,640 with the 2014 modeling work and for the 2015 model it is 26,121. Table 11 shows how nationally total employment is expected to either decrease or not grow as much as was projected in the 2014 projections. Manufacturing job growth is less robust nationally and in the OOB forecast this reduced Nevada s manufacturing sector as well. However, with as shown in Table 9 shows how locally with manufacturing the region is projected to be counter to the projected national trend in manufacturing. What is important is that this applies to employment and not labor productivity or total economic output at the national level. Table 11. Comparison of Forecasted National Percentage Job by Sector from 2013 to 2034 for the 1.5 (2014) and 1.7 (2015) REMI Model s % -27.2% Mining -18.5% 4.8% Utilities -31.3% -31.3% Construction 79.0% 72.8% Manufacturing 1.2% -15.3% Wholesale Trade 27.2% -1.8%

13 Table 11. Comparison of Forecasted National Percentage Job by Sector from 2013 to 2034 for the 1.5 (2014) and 1.7 (2015) REMI Model s Retail Trade 6.9% 0.7% Transportation and Warehousing 46.4% 0.8% Information -11.1% -20.3% Finance and Insurance 5.9% -1.2% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 12.3% 11.0% Professional, Scientific, and 38.8% 35.3% Management of Companies and Enterprises 9.3% -13.9% 37.5% 25.5% Educational Services 31.6% 13.6% Health Care and Social Assistance 29.0% 27.5% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 34.3% 14.3% Accommodation and Food Services 21.9% 12.3% 16.0% -1.4% State and Local -0.8% 0.8% Federal Civilian 9.6% -13.3% Federal Military -8.0% -15.3% Farm -18.2% -37.1% Total 19.7% 10.1% While the national job growth is assumed to be less robust over the next 20 years that looks also to be the case for Carson City, Lyon, and Washoe Counties. Nationally there were slightly more jobs for the period between 2011 and 2013 (the additional history in the model). In the 2014 projections, employment was overestimated and projected for 2012 to 2014 compared to more current information shows as the actual amounts used in the 2015 projections. This less robust performance compared to the national economy also slows overall job growth in the model for the region. Thus, Tesla and Switch would have a larger impact given the recent historic data. Table 12. Percentage Difference by Year Between 1.5 (2014) and 1.7 (2015) REMI Model s Employment Estimates (2000 to 2013) and Projections for the US and NW Nevada US Total Carson City Lyon Washoe % 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% % 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% % -0.5% -0.2% -0.3% % -0.7% -1.6% 0.1% % -3.4% -2.1% -0.6% % -3.0% -1.4% -0.5% % -3.1% 0.0% 0.1% % -4.4% -2.4% -4.3% % -8.1% -7.0% -8.5% % -12.6% -11.3% -13.3% % -15.8% -12.8% -16.0% Average 2011 to % -2.4% -1.7% -0.3% Table 13 and Table 14 look at the three counties and their location quotients from both the 2014 and the 2015 model for 2013 and for While there are differences between the two projections for the base year of 2013 and the projection of 2014, they are not significantly large differences and the overall structure of the local economies look very similar between the two models. 11

14 12 Table 13. Comparing Location Quotients for Carson City, Lyon and Washoe Counties for 2013 from the 1.5 (2014) and 1.7 (2015) REMI Model s Carson Lyon Washoe Sector Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Management of Companies and Enterprises Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services State and Local Federal Civilian Federal Military Farm Table 14. Comparing Location Quotients for Carson City, Lyon and Washoe Counties for 2034 from the 1.5 (2014) and 1.7 (2015) REMI Model s Carson Lyon Washoe Sector Mining Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Management of Companies and Enterprises Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services State and Local Federal Civilian Federal Military Farm Table 14 shows that the biggest difference that is likely impacting population growth in the labor force participation rate. The table shows the labor force participation rates for both the 2014 and 2015 projections including Tesla and Switch. What is shown is the difference between the two models and not the impact of Tesla on labor force participation. Labor

15 force participation is projected to be slightly less nationally but even at a 1.3% difference it shrinks the pool of potential migrants who might move to Nevada. The labor force population is projected to be 294,070,632 in 2034 and 1.3% of that is 3,528,848 fewer people participating in the labor market and looking for work in their community or elsewhere. Table 14. Comparing Labor Force Participation Rates Between 1.5 (2014) and 1.7 (2015) REMI Models Labor Force Estimates (2000 to 2013) and Projections for the US and NW Nevada US Carson Lyon Washoe % 66.4% 68.7% 68.7% 68.1% 68.1% 73.6% 73.6% % 65.4% 65.3% 65.3% 57.9% 57.9% 68.3% 68.3% % 64.1% 69.6% 69.8% 57.8% 58.1% 67.9% 68.3% % 63.6% 67.8% 69.0% 57.2% 57.9% 66.7% 67.1% % 63.2% 67.1% 66.1% 56.3% 55.6% 66.0% 65.5% % 62.7% 66.5% 64.6% 56.0% 53.7% 65.6% 64.2% % 62.6% 66.2% 63.9% 55.7% 53.1% 65.3% 63.6% % 62.0% 66.2% 64.0% 57.7% 53.6% 64.7% 64.0% % 60.8% 65.9% 63.5% 58.4% 53.1% 64.0% 63.3% % 60.5% 65.5% 63.6% 58.1% 53.3% 63.1% 63.3% % 60.5% 65.5% 63.9% 57.6% 53.8% 62.4% 63.4% In modeling economic migrants, REMI uses as one factor the concept of real relative compensation rates. That is an indicator that looks at the average compensation by industry and the cost of living in a region relative to the nation as a whole. Cost of living includes taxes and housing costs relative to the nation. Table 15 compares the Relative Compensation Rates between the two projections. The rate is less in the 2015 projection and this is tied to more current information for both 2012 and 2013 as well as revisions for 2011 and The relative advantage of three counties decreased in the 2015 projections compared to the 2014 projections. Table 15. Comparing Real Relative Compensation Rates Between 1.5 (2014) and 1.7 (2015) REMI Models Labor Force Estimates (2000 to 2013) and Projections for the US and NW Nevada Carson City Lyon Washoe Table 16 shows the projected annual average wage for the three counties as well as Storey County, the United States, and Nevada. Tesla and Switch are locating to Storey County and wage information is reported by where it is earned. While there has been some discussion of housing being developed in Storey County, any plans are still uncertain. So the assumption is that workers are likely to commute primarily from Lyon and Washoe Counties. Table 16. Projected Average Annual Wage Rate For the US, Nevada, and Carson City, Lyon and Washoe Counties in Current Dollars US Carson City Lyon Washoe Nevada Storey 2014 $39,218 $29,572 $26,963 $34,245 $34,406 $39, $40,366 $30,408 $27,931 $35,037 $35,472 $46, $41,887 $31,598 $29,171 $36,558 $36,913 $51, $43,585 $32,976 $30,645 $38,318 $38,630 $60, $45,416 $34,410 $32,119 $40,116 $40,418 $68, $47,276 $35,837 $33,556 $41,857 $42,185 $73,716 13

16 Table 16. Projected Average Annual Wage Rate For the US, Nevada, and Carson City, Lyon and Washoe Counties in Current Dollars US Carson City Lyon Washoe Nevada Storey 2020 $49,237 $37,355 $35,103 $43,683 $44,008 $78, $51,287 $38,925 $36,682 $45,551 $45,880 $83, $53,436 $40,581 $38,353 $47,493 $47,812 $88, $55,737 $42,316 $40,100 $49,529 $49,848 $93, $58,134 $44,108 $41,896 $51,637 $51,948 $98, $60,578 $45,924 $43,714 $53,769 $54,073 $103, $63,037 $47,749 $45,549 $55,916 $56,206 $108, $65,553 $49,615 $47,421 $58,106 $58,379 $113, $68,183 $51,563 $49,394 $60,402 $60,649 $118, $70,951 $53,559 $51,363 $62,742 $63,022 $124, $73,798 $55,647 $53,456 $65,196 $65,468 $130, $75,712 $57,008 $54,889 $66,825 $67,078 $134, $77,647 $58,381 $56,338 $68,492 $68,719 $138, $79,665 $59,841 $57,885 $70,245 $70,445 $142, $81,784 $61,377 $59,514 $72,097 $72,265 $146, Table 17 shows the change in relative housing price and changes in the wage rates in comparing the baseline forecast for 2015 to the impact of Tesla and Switch. Relative housing prices go up while wages within the counties are either flat or slightly lower once Tesla in considered. While housing prices may be lower relative to the nation, they do increase and this may impact the attractiveness of the area given average wages. Table 17. Percentage in Relative Housing Price and Wages for Carson City, Lyon and Washoe Counties Between the Baseline Forecast and the Tesla Impact Carson City Lyon Washoe Housing Wages Housing Wages Housing Wages % -0.15% 2.08% 0.61% 0.58% 0.36% % -0.11% 3.71% 0.28% 1.22% 0.43% % -0.06% 6.67% 0.17% 2.12% 0.49% % -0.02% 7.55% 0.10% 2.51% 0.54% % 0.02% 8.14% 0.04% 2.76% 0.55% % 0.05% 8.77% 0.01% 3.05% 0.56% % 0.08% 9.24% -0.02% 3.26% 0.55% % 0.11% 9.69% -0.03% 3.48% 0.55% % 0.06% 10.09% -0.06% 3.66% 0.50% % 0.02% 10.44% -0.09% 3.81% 0.45% % -0.02% 10.68% -0.12% 3.93% 0.40% % -0.05% 10.94% -0.15% 4.06% 0.35% % -0.09% 11.19% -0.18% 4.19% 0.30% % -0.12% 11.46% -0.21% 4.32% 0.26% % -0.15% 11.47% -0.24% 4.29% 0.22% % -0.18% 11.63% -0.27% 4.35% 0.18% % -0.25% 11.73% -0.30% 4.40% 0.12% % -0.32% 11.85% -0.35% 4.44% 0.05% % -0.42% 11.95% -0.40% 4.49% -0.04% % 0.52% 12.07% 0.46% 4.53% 0.13%

17 While wages for the three counties are projected to be lower than national wage rates per capita income is projected to increase over time as shown in Table 18. This may be due to commuting income from Storey County employment, pensions and other sources of income in addition to wages earned within the three counties. Table 18. Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita Fixed (2009) Dollars US Carson City (Independent City) Lyon County Washoe County 2014 $37,692 $35,321 $24,857 $36, $38,756 $36,954 $26,679 $37, $39,827 $38,505 $28,071 $39, $40,786 $40,313 $30,305 $40, $41,474 $41,019 $30,951 $41, $42,269 $41,721 $31,606 $42, $43,059 $42,487 $32,262 $42, $43,893 $43,266 $32,885 $43, $44,855 $44,186 $33,636 $44, $45,516 $44,773 $34,085 $45, $46,185 $45,380 $34,537 $45, $47,159 $46,249 $35,256 $46, $48,022 $47,049 $35,925 $47, $48,806 $47,766 $36,511 $48, $49,559 $48,490 $37,101 $48, $50,281 $49,079 $37,512 $49, $50,976 $49,767 $38,028 $50, $51,387 $50,173 $38,333 $50, $51,724 $50,522 $38,563 $50, $52,056 $50,850 $38,814 $51, $52,405 $51,202 $39,067 $51,757 In conclusion, while the population projection is less robust for Carson City, Lyon, and Washoe Counties in the 2015 projections compared to the 2014 projections, there do appear to be factors in the model that would explain that, given the projected job growth. As stated above, these projections are done annually using the best information available at that time. As more information becomes available and circumstances change so too shall the projections. The following pages contain the detailed total population projections and the appendices provide additional information. 15

18 2015 Population Projections for Nevada's Counties 2015 to 2034 Based On 2014 Estimate: Includes Tesla Plant as Separate Impact 16 With Tesla and Switch Carson City With Tesla Total Population Previous Year Percentage Churchill With Tesla Previous Year Total Population Percentage ,969 25, , % 25, % , % 25, % , % 25, % , % 25, % , % 26, % , % 26, % , % 26, % , % 27, % , % 27, % , % 27, % , % 28, % , % 28, % , % 29, % , % 29, % , % 29, % , % 30, % , % 30, % , % 31, % , % 31, % , % 31, % DRAFT Without Teslas and Switch Carson City Previous Year Churchill Previous Year Total Population Percentage Total Population Percentage ,969 25, , % 25, % , % 25, % , % 25, % , % 25, % , % 25, % , % 26, % , % 26, % , % 26, % , % 27, % , % 27, % , % 27, % , % 28, % , % 28, % , % 29, % , % 29, % , % 29, % , % 30, % , % 30, % , % 30, % , % 31, % Produced By The Nevada State Demographer, Nevada Department of Taxation 2015 Total Population Projections (e 1.0) ( )