The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business
•
revIew
august 1970
fEDERA lL RESERVE
BANK OF DALLAS
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thousonds of borre ls)
ACREAGE
{In thousands of acres'
For harvest
Harvested
PRODUCTION
{In thousand s of bushels'
================================================~~
Perc ent chang e ~
(>.Pl~1
~~~
A
Arizona
lou isi an t
Ne w Me
Oklahon
Texas . .
Total.
1
Indi
SOUR
Total no
wag e
Manu!
Nonm
Min
COl
Tra
F
Tra
Fine
Ser
Go
1
A riz
p- I
r-I
SOUR
contents
Electric utilities in Texas
face challenge of rising demand
3
District highlights .. .... . .. . ............ . ... , 11
Electric utilities i,. Texas
face challenge of ,-ising demand
Demand for electricity is expected to more
than double in Texas over the next decade,
PUshing total sales for the state to 181 billion
kilowatt-hours by 1980, compared with 77
billion in 1968 and an estimated 83 billion in
~969. TIllS forecast presents the state's utility
Industry with challenges decidedly different
from those facing utilities in many other parts
of the country.
. To meet heavier demand for electricity, utilihes must begin plant expansions five or six
~ears in advance, basing their plans on proJections of expected demand that extend even
further into the future. In some parts of the
COuntry - especially the Northeast - utilities
Underestimated the growth in demand in the
1960's, and now, with capacity lagging behind
dernand, they face the threat of brownouts or
eVen a complete blackout.
There is no such problem in Texas, where
Plant expansion over the past 20 years has
brought the available supply of power to a level
tbat exceeds peak-load requirements by more
tban 15 percent. But with the increase in
d~ll1and expected in the 1970's, Texas utilities
still face the challenge of maintaining a favorable balance between supply and demand.
~eanwhile, changes in fuel costs are forcing
tbe industry to look beyond natural gas to other
energy sources for help in preserving the solid
finanCial position from which utilities have been
able to undertake expansion projects.
owned utility companies. The state's 68 municipal utilities account for about 13 percent of the
total capacity, with the remaining 4 percent
accounted for by rural electric cooperatives and
generating plants supported by either the state
or the Federal Government.
There are 173 electric power plants in the
state. Although only 93 of these plants are
powered by steam, they account for 97 percent of the state's total generating capacity, the
remaining capacity being provided by 20 hydroelectric plants and 60 plants driven by internalcombustion engines.
Utilities in Tex~s, as elsewhere across the
nation, have linked themselves into power
grids designed to protect them against power
failures by providing access to the generating
resources of neighboring utilities. If one generSERVICE AREA OF TEXAS
INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM
The industry and its market
Most of the electricity consumed in Texas is
~:nerated by privately owned steam plants. Of
estate's 21.9 million kilowatts of generating
capaCity, 83 percent is provided by 13 investor-
SOURCE: To ... Ulilitio. Company .
business review/ august 1970
3
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thousands of barrels)
ACREAGE
(In thousands of acres)
=============================================~
Percent change ~
PRODUCTION
(In thousands of bushels)
Harvested
For harvest
May
(lp.!~1
~~~
Arizona
Loui sianl
New ME
Oklahon
Texa s ••
Total.
1
Indi
SOUR
Total nO
wage
Manul
Nonm
Min
COl
Tra
F
Tra
Fine
Ser
Go
Ariz
p- I
ating plant fails, other plants in the grid can
help provide the power required until the fault
is corrected. Nine utilities in the central part of
the state are linked together in the Texas Interconnected System. The only parts of the state
not covered by this grid are in far East Texas,
far West Texas, and the Panhandle. Utilities in
these areas are interconnected with grids outside the state.
Although demand for electricity has been
rising in Texas at an increasing rate, doubling
on average every seven years, the composition
of the market for electricity has changed very
little, and it will probably not change much over
the coming decade. Commercial and industrial
tustomers are the heaviest users of electricity,
consuming nearly 68 percent of the electrical
energy sold in Texas last year. Residential cus-
1
r-I
SOUR
Energy sales in Texas
increased eightfold in 18 years
BILLIONS OF KILOWATT · HOURS
80
tomers follow a distant second, comprising
almost 29 percent of the market, while governmental customers, including those providing
lighting for streets and highways, account for
the remaining sales . Residential sales are eXpected to increase slightly faster than total saleS
in the 1970's, but with the relative share of
electricity used by householders increasing no
more than 1 percent by 1980, the composition
of consumer load will probably remain essentially the same.
The total sales of 181 billion kilowatt-hours
forecast for 1980 could understate the gro wtl1
in demand, however, if major innovations requiring large amounts of electrical energy caJ1le
into general use in the 1970's. A 'faster increase
in electrical sales could come with the introduCtion of popular new products, such as air conditioning and television in the past or perhapS
electric automobiles in the future; changes in the
use of existing products, such as a sudden increase in the use of electric heating, as might
be expected from a boom in construction of allelectric houses; or changes in production techniques that would require greater use of electrical power.l
Peak load . ..
60
Demand for electricity is so highly cyclical,
however, that even if the current projectio~
proves fairly accurate, it provides no clear indication of the generating capacity needed to meet
future peaks in demand. There are several
cyclical movements in demand but the most
important variations relate to d~ily and annual
peaks. In most areas of Texas , demand rises to
its highest level of the day in late afternoon,
when businesses are still open and home con-
40
20
,/
o
1950
1956
SOURCE : Edison Electric In s titut e,
1962
1968
1 E lectrical power is measured in kilowatts (tbO~
sands of watts) and megawatts (millions of watts).
kilowatt is t?e equivalent of 1.34 horsepower. (OJl~
horsepower IS the force required to lift one poUPb
33,000 feet in one minute.) E lectrical energy, Wbl C
relates to the actual work done rather than the power
to do work, is measured in kilowatt-hours.
ANNUAL PEAK LOADS FOR SELECTED
TEXAS ELECTRIC UTILITIES
-------------------------------
-
Megawatts
Company
1960
1968
1964
Hou ston Lighting & Power , ,
4,260
2,777
1,931
GUlf States Utilities , , , , ,
1,712
1,109
'exas Power & Light. , , , , , , , , ,
2,556
2,077
1,465
880
'exas Electric Service , , , , ' . , , ,
2,062
1,502
1,032
Dallas Power & Light , , , , , , , , , ,
1,602
1,324
1,256
1,128
884
SOuthwestern Public Service ,
Central Power & Light , , ,
1,308
1,081
881
790
699
556
941
628
438
456
374
301
291
SOuthwestern Electric Power ,
City Public Service Board
of San Antonio' , , ,
West Texas Utiliti es ,
.
EI Paso Electric , , ' . . . . . . . . .
TOTAL , , . , .... , . .. . .
400
18,067
12,814
811
231
8,862
--------------------------------------MUniCipal utility.
SOURCE: Genera l Electric Company.
1
SUmption rises. The highest level of the year
comes in August, when air-conditioning loads
are the heaviest. Loads from air conditioning
can account for more than a third of the annual
Peak: load.
. Before the widespread use of air conditionlUg, the annual peak carne in late December,
~hen days are the shortest and additional lightlUg is needed for Christmas decorations. But
With the growing use of air conditioning, dett1.and requirements have built up in the summer
Until they are now half again greater in August
than in winter. Parts of the country where the
Shift in peak requirements was not fully anticiPated now face possible summer power failures .
are long off-peak periods when utility companies have excess capacity. To make best use
of their plants, utilities try to increase their
load factor -- the ratio of average power to
peak power. By offering lower rates to large
users during off-peak periods, they try to help
smooth out demand, increasing the load factor
and making more efficient use of their plants.
. . . and plant capacity
Growth in generating capacity in Texas has
more than kept pace with the increase in peakload demand. In contrast to the shortages
threatening some parts of the country, estimated
generating capacity in Texas is about 15 percent higher than the peak load Texas utilities
are likely to face during the summer months.
InstaUed capacity has more than doubled in
Texas over the past decade, expanding from
10,054 megawatts in 1960 to about 23,700
Peak in nation's production
of electricity shifts
fron1 winter to sunlluer
B I LLIONS OF KILOWATT · HOURS
150
140
130
120
The first summer peak load in Texas was in
DaUas in 1936 when air-conditioners at the
'texas Centenni~l pushed power loads beyond
nOrtnal December levels. A summer peak was
n?t established statewide, however, until home
air Conditioning carne into genera l use in the
late 1940's.
, Since power plants must be capable of meetIng peak-load requirements, which are of very
Short duration compared with the level of
dell1and for the rest of the day or year, there
110
60
50
SOURCE : U.S. Dopartmont of Commer ce .
business review/august 1970
5
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thousonds of barre ls)
ACREAGE
(In thousand s of acres)
===========================================~
Percent change ~
PRODUCTION
(In thousands of bu shels)
Harv este d
For harvest
May
(>.Pl~1
~a~
A
Ari zona
Louisiant
New ME
Oklahon
Texa s . .
Total.
megawatts in 1969. This gain represents an
average annual growth of 10.0 percent, compared with an annual increase of about 9.3
percent in peak load.
is not expected to double until 1980. By then,
capacity in Texas will probably have reached
52,300 megawatts, or a level 2.2 times the
capacity in 1969.
To meet the demand for electricity forecast
for the 1970's, utility companies in Texas are
expected to continue their rapid plant expansions at a rate that will double installed capacity by 1978. Nationwide, generating capacity
Indi
SOUR
1
Costs of expansion
Ty~
Total no
wage
Technical Note
Manul
Nonm
To determine the future increases in
energy sales and generating capacity in
Texas, trend lines were statistically estimated by the method of least squares.
Annual data published by the Edison
Electric Institute for 1950 through 1968
were used in the calculations. Energy sales
were measured in millions of kilowatthours, and generating capacity was expressed in megawatts.
Min
Cor
Tra
~
Tra
fine
Ser
Go
1
Ariz
p- I
r-I
SOUR
Both data series were specified as linear,
quadratic, cubic, and logarithmic functions of time. In aU equations, the estimated coefficients were found to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The
various functional forms were compared
to determine goodness of fit through use
of an analysis-of-variance test. The best
forecast was provided by the quadratic
equation
E = a+ bP
+u
where
E
= dependent variable
T
= time measured in years
u = random error
a and b
6
= estimated coefficients
To sustain the long-run growth needed to
meet projected demand, electric utilities must
earn enough to cover both current operating
expenses and the fixed charges on costs of
additional capacity. Fuel is one of the primary
costs, accounting for more than 40 percent at
the operating and maintenance costs (exclusive
of taxes) of electric companies in Texas last
year. Almost all this fuel was natural gas. .
The advantages of natural gas in firing generating plants are numerous, especially in Texas,
which produced 38 percent of the nation's supply last year. Even in states where natural gaS
is not as readily available, utility companies seek
supplies of this clean-burning fuel to avoid the
offensive residues left from burning coal or fuel
oil. Also, the flow of gas to burners can be easily
regulated to control the amount of heat needed,
and since the gas can be used on demand, the
need for storage facilities at the generating plant
is eliminated. In Texas, the proximity of nla nY
gas fields offers the added advantage of loW
transportation costs. Almost anywhere in the
state, natural gas has to be moved only short
distances.
Growth in demand for natural gas as a heating fuel - relative to the growth in reserves --has created some concern among electric utilities in Texas, however, causing them to consider
other energy sources. The nation consumed 21.1
trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 1969, compared with 16.6 trillion in 1965, and according
to the Federal Power Commission , consumptiOIl
6
is expected to reach an annual rate of 26.
trillion cubic feet by 1973.
Meanwhile, proved reserves of natural gaS
are dwindling. The nation's reserves in 19 6;
were considered adequate for its needs for 17.
Years. By 1969, reserves had dropped to a supply for 13.7 years. And it has been estimated
that by 1973, proved reserves will be adequate
for only 10.2 years.
Other fossil fuels
The increasing demand for natural gas and
the decreasing reserve supply have placed upward pressure on gas prices, making prices of
Other fuels more competitive. Currently, the
Closest competitor is fuel oil. But its use in
Texas is still limited mainly to meeting peakload requirements and providing a standby fuel
for emergencies. Not only is the cost of fuel oil
Significantly more than the cost of natural gas
but Use of fuel oil for other than standby purPoses would require that utilities invest in large
storage facilities and possibly in oil pipelines.
As a further disadvantage, some fuel oils have
a high sulfur content, which adds to pollution.
Lignite is another fuel becoming more attractive to some power companies in Texas. This
f?nn of coal, which has a geological classificahan midway between peat and bituminous coal,
Was widely used in Texas before oil and gas
MAJOR LIGNITE DEPOSITS IN TEXAS
SOURCE: U. S. Bureau of Minos.
became readily available. Although Aluminum
Corporation of America has a lignite-fired
generating plant at its Rockdale aluminum reduction facility, lignite has not been used as a
source of energy in commercial power generation since the 1930's.
Because large quantities of lignite are needed
to produce the heat required for a steam plant,
transportation costs make it necessary for proposed plants fired by lignite to be located near
lignite deposits. The Texas Utilities Company
System is building a large lignite-fired power
plant in Freestone County and is planning an-'
other for Titus County. Initial generation at the
Freestone plant is planned for late 1971, with
a second generator scheduled for operation in
late 1972. The station in Titus County will
begin operation in 1975, with a second generator going on line in 1976. Both the Freestone
and the Titus plants will be close enough to
lignite deposits for the fuel to be transported
directly to the plants on demand, largely eliminating storage costs.
The future of nuclear energy
Although Texas has no nuclear generating
plants and only a few could be operational by
1980, atomic power promises to become more
important as demand for electricity continues to
increase and available reserves of fossil fuels
shrink. All nuclear power plants are designed
to use fission reactors, which release heat energy
by splitting atoms of uranium or plutonium.
Eventually, nuclear plants may use fusion reactors, which will release energy during the fusion
of heavy hydrogen isotopes.
The industry has had considerable problems
in adopting nuclear technology. One of the most
important has been the soaring costs of building nuclear plants. Another has been the resistance of local communities to the idea of having
radioactive materials nearby. Still another has
been the possibility of thermal and nuclear
pollution of lakes ~nd streams.
business review/august 1970
7
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thousands of barrels)
ACREAGE
(In thousands of acres)
For harvest
Harve sted
------
===========================================~
Percent change ~
PRODUCTION
(In thousand s of bu shels)
May
April
May
April
Mo ~
A
Arizona
lou is ian ~
Ne w ME
Oklahon
Texa s ..
Total .
Indi
SOUR
1
Total no
wage
Manul
Nonm
Min
Cor
Tro
~
Tro
fin e
Ser
Go
A ri z
p- I
r-I
SOUR
1
The overriding constraint on the long-run use
of fissionable reactors in power generation is
the supply of uranium and plutonium. The rapid
use of electricity and the increasing cost of
recovery of fissionable materials limit the feasibility of fission reactors as a source of power
in the long run and point to fusion processes as
the power source that will eventually be used.
Research on the theoretical problems of
applying fusion processes to the generation of
electrical power is being carried out in all the
nuclear nations. Research at the University of
Texas at Austin, for example, is underwritten
by the Texas Atomic Energy Research Foundation, organized in 1957 by ten of the state's
large electric utility companies. Even when the
theoretical problems have been solved, however,
fusion will not be practical in the generation of
electricity until engineering techniques have
been developed to make construction of fusion
plants feasible for commercial generation. Then,
operating costs will have to be reduced to make
the process profitable.
The potentials of a fusion reactor power
plant are, nevertheless, numerous enough to
make these efforts worthwhile. The supply of
fusionable material is limitless (heavy hydrogen
isotopes - deuterium and tritium - are taken
from water). Fusion reaction leaves no radioactive by-products. And since a fusion system
could, conceivably, convert some of the energy
released directly into electricity, the steam 'cycle
in power generation might be reduced (in size
and cost), allowing a more efficient plant with
lower energy loss in the conversion process.
,/
Construction of large gas-fired steam plants
costs between $70 and $75 per kilowatt of
capacity, while lignite plants cost between $120
and $130 per kilowatt and nuclear fission plants
between $220 and $260. If construction costs
were the only consideration, there would be no
advantage in utilities' switching from plants using natural gas to those using some other fuel.
But with fuel costs a major portion of the total
8
costs of operation, utilities ,planning expansions
continually watch the comparative costs of
other fuels. With the price of natural gas tending
to rise, total costs of plants fueled by lignite and
nuclear energy are becoming more competitive.
The cost gap between natural gas and lignite is
already narrow when capital costs are included.
The ability to expand
A utility company's ability to expand its
generating capacity depends largely on its ability
to attract funds at a cost that will not impair
its profitability and, therefore, its ability to raise
still more capital for further growth. To hold
down its financing costs, a compariy must try
to maintain the best possible balance between
borrowed capital and equity funds - the best
balance depending on the costs of borrowed
funds relative to the return to equity shareholders.
If the interest charges a company must pay
on bonds and other borrowings drop relative to
the rate of return on equity capital, the col11pany can reduce its total cost of capital by
incurring a larger proportion of debt. But if
interest rates on utility bonds increase, as they
have for several years, and the company doeS
not earn a higher return, substantial limits are
placed on its ability to incur new debt for finanCing future expansion.
INTEREST RATES FOR AVERAGE
PUBLIC UTILITY BONDS
Percent per an num
Range
High
Low
.... . .
.......
1970 1
1969
196B
1967
9.21
B.57
6.9B
7.02
6.59
5.22
B.2B
Through June.
SOURCE: Moody's Bond Survey.
1
6.23
----
-1966
5.81
4.85
-----
While the limit to which a utility companY
can incur debt depends generally on its earnings and plant investment, a company with II
low ratio of debt to equity is normally in II
better position to undertake additional financing
than one with a high debt-to-equity ratio. A
ratio of 1.5 would mean that 60 percent of a
Company's capital structure was debt and 40
percent was equity. Some electric utility COID-
panies in Texas have debt-to-equity ratios as
low as 1.0, but others at times have had ratios
as high as 1.7. The average ratio for all investorowned electric utilities in the state in 1966 was
-Relationship Between Capacity and Peak load
KILOWATTS
A
A
c
c
SEASONAL DEMAND VARIATION
TIME
Electric utilities must program construction projects so that expansion in plant
capacity is fairly evenly paced to growth in
peak load. To illustrate the importance of
maintaining surplus capacity, these two
figures show the relationship between the
generating capacity of a utility company and
peak load.
In the first figure, capacity and peak load
are in dynamic equilibrium. Generating caPacity increases along line AB, while peak
~oad - determined by the seasonal variation
li1 demand - increases at the same rate (CD)
but at a constant level less than capacity. The
?ifIerence between capacity and peak load
IS the level of reserves. This reserve capacity
WUI be adequate as long as the company can
accurately forecast demand and sustain its
bUilding program.
In the second figure, the company has
failed to foresee a sudden surge in demand
at TI and the dynamic equilibrium between
generating capacity and peak load is upset.
Peak load is now projected along line
CEFGH, instead of CED. Reserve capacity
begins falling off after Tl> dropping to zero
at. T 2 , the point where generating capacity is
just equal to peak load. Peak load continues
to rise, exceeding generating capacity after
T 2 • At that point, the utility is forced to meet
its peak-load requirements by purchasing
electricity from a neighboring utility.
To meet the change in demand requirements, the utility would presumably begin
increasing its capacity at T I • However, with
lead time TITs required to place a new
generating facility on line, demand would
exceed capacity throughout period T 2T a. The
new facility would increase total capacity by
[J kilowatts. Barring any further sudden
changes in peak load, reserves could be
maintained at a level equal to the difference
between JK and GH.
II
business review/august 1970
9
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thou sond s of barrels)
ACREAGE
{In thousands of acres}
For harvest
Harvested
-----
PRODUCTION
(In thousands of bushels)
============================================~
Percent change f~
May
April
Moy
April
A
Arizona
loui s ian ~
N ew Me
Oklaho n
Texa s ..
-
Total.
Indi
SOUR
1
Regulation' of, Electric ' Utilities in Texas
Utilities are regulated in Texas through
franchise agreements between the utilities
and the municipalities they serve. Tllis is in
sharp contrast with practices in most states,
where utilities are regulated by state commissions.
Totol nO
wage
Manul
Nonm
Min
Cor
Tra
f
Tra
Franchise contracts in Texas are ordinarily
limited to a maximum of 50 years. Although
details of the contracts vary from city to city,
all deal with the responsibilities of the franchised company, granting special privileges
and imposing certain limitations that could
not apply to most businesses. The franchised
utility company is authorized to market
electricity in the community and to acquire
use of public and private property for the
generation, transmission, and distribution of
electricity. The company, however, must provide equal and uniform service to everyone
in the service area. Return on its investment
is limited, either by the franchise or by state
law.
The rates charged for electrical service are
formally approved by the city council (often
by city ordinance) and can be changed only
by similar official action.
-
Fine
Ser
Go
Ariz
p- I
1
r-I
SOUR
1.3, and despite sharp increases in interest rates
on utility bonds o~er the next two yeai"s, the'
average debt-to-equitY lratio for these companies
was still 1.3 in 1968.
\,
Effects · of ·the 19Q9-70 ' credit squeeze on
utility companies in trexa~; are not fully kno~n.
Taken as a whole, however, the state's electric
utility industry ~ favored with a re~erve cae
pacity a~el!f.uate for any foreseeable p. ak in
/
demand, proximity to native fuels, and a record
of earnings stable enough to attract adequate
capital - appears to be generally well situated
to continue the rapid expansion needed to
satisfy demand for electrical energy in the
1970's. If the industry continues to expand at
its current rate, it should be able to satisfy
peak-load requirements throughout the decade.
EDWARD
L. MCCLELLAND
Texas oil allowables were raised substantially
from 55.5 percent of maximum efficient production in July to 62.9 percent in August. The allowable in Louisiana was raised first to 51 perCent of maximum efficient production and then
to a new high of 56 percent. The previous high
in Louisiana was 54 percent, set during the
Suez crisis in 1957. New Mexico and Oklahoma
allowables remained unchanged at their levels
far july.
The increases in allowables in Texas and
Louisiana followed two events creating international difficulties in getting oil to market. One
was in Libya, where the government reduced
Production aUegedly to pressure foreign oil comPanies into increasing the country's revenues.
The other was in Syria, where the government
~as delayed repairs on the Trans-Arabian Pipe~Ine in an apparent attempt to force an increase
~n transit royalties. The pipeline was broken
Inside the Syrian border on May 3. These two
eVents have reduced the flow of petroleum to
Burope from Mediterranean sources by at least
a lUillion barrels a day. Efforts to make up the
reduction are putting a severe strain on world
tanker capacity, causing increased tanker rates.
With the higher cost of transportation, the value
Of import tickets issued by the Government to
~llocate U.S. imports has dropped substa~
tlally, creating greater demand for domestic
Production.
The seasonally adjusted Texas industrial production index declined 1.1 percent in June to
17 7.0 percent of the 1957-59 base. The drop
was due to declines in the production of durable goods and crude oil. Manufacturing of
dUrable goods which has been declining since
Iate last year, ' fell 1.2 percent below the May
level. Most of this drop was in transportation
equipment and electrical machinery, reflecting
weaknesses ill automobiles and Government
contracts.
The decline in crude oil production - a drop
of 4.8 percent from the May level- represented a change from recent months and a situation that will probably not last long. The Texas
oil allowable was reduced for May, June, and
July but was raised again for August.
Compared with June 1969, the index was up,
although only 1.3 percent. Even this slight gain
compared favorably, however, with a 3.0percent decline in the national index. The gain
in the Texas index was held back by year-toyear declines of 2.8 percent in the production
of durable goods and 2.0 percent in the production of crude oil. Nondurable goods manufacturing was up 5.8 percent, and utilities were up
4.7 percent.
Total nonagricultural wage and salary employment in states of the Eleventh District
fai led to reach the level seasonally expected in
June. Employment in these five states, nevertheless, reached 6,389,400, compared with
6,361,500 in May. Both manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing employment rose about 0.5
percent. Government employment dropped as
school terms ended and many nonteaching employees were released for the summer. Construction and services posted gains of 1.5 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively. The increase
in construction employment was much less
than expected.
As in other recent months, the change in employment from the same month last year reflected a slackened demand for labor. Total employment in the five-state region was up only
2.1 percent over June 1969. Manufacturing em-
business review/august 1970
11
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thousands of barrol s)
ACREAGE
(In thousands 01 acres)
For harvest
Harvested
------
===========================================~
PRODUCTION
(In thousonds 01 bushel s)
Percent change ~
May
April
May
April
~~~
A
Arizona
louisianj
New ME
Oklahon
Texas . .
Total.
Indi
SOUR
1
Totol no
wage
Manuj
Nonm
Min
Cor
Tra
f
Tra
Fine
Ser
Go
1
Ariz
ployment, reacting primarily to weakness in the
production of durable goods, dropped nearly
2.0 percent. In nonmanufacturing employment,
construction was weak, showing only a 0.7percent gain over a year before. Depressed automobile production and fewer Government
contracts slowed employment in manufacturing
and construction, in the Southwest and the
nation. The largest year-to-year gains were
posted in finance and services.
Unemployment data showed further evidence
of softness in the labor market. The number of
people filing for unemployment insurance benefits in the southwestern states was up sharply
from year-earlier levels. In the first week of
July, there were twice as many unemployed
workers filing for benefits in Texas as in the
same week last year. Similarly, unemployment
rates were higher throughout the five states.
p- I
r-I
SOUR
Most crops are in good condition in the Eleventh District, despite a general need for rain.
The cotton crop is showing good growth in
Texas, although there has been some bollworm
and boll-weevil damage in the southern part of
tile state. Cotton growth is also good in Arizona
and New Mexico, but it is less advanced than
at this time last year. Most sorghum is doing
well and maturing rapidly. Rice prospects continue good to excellent.
The cotton acreage estimated for harvest in
the five states of the District totals 6,832,000
acres - 14 percent more than was harvested in
1969. Acreages estimated for harvest of other
major crops have declined, however. Sorghums
are down 4 percent, winter wheat 13 percent,
and rice 15 percent. Most of the decline can be
attributed to smaller Government acreage allotments for 1970.
./
Range conditions in the western part of the
District have deteriorated with hot, dry weather,
making some supplemental feeding of livestock
necessary. Pastures and ranges in the eastern
12
part of the District also need rain but are in
better shape than those in the western part.
Most livestock in the District are in good condition. Substantially more hogs are on farms in
Texas than last year, partly as a result of the
high hog prices over the past year. There were
1,097,000 hogs on Texas farms June 1 - 24
percent more than a year ago.
Prices received by Texas farmers and ranchers on June 15 were 1 percent higher than a
month earlier but 2 percent lower than a year
earlier. The all-crops index was 3 percent higher
than in May and 2 percent higher than in June
1969. Prices for wheat, corn, barley, and sorghums were less than in May but higher than in
June last year. The index of livestock and livestock products was up 1 percent from a mo nU1
before and down 3 percent from a year before.
Except for sheep and lambs, prices of red-mea!
animals were higher than in May. Prices of
sheep and lambs were lower.
Registrations of new passenger automobiles
in the four major metropolitan reporting areas
of Texas were 11 percent higher in June than in
May. Each of the reporting centers - Dallas,
Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonioposted higher registrations. The increases ranged
from 19 percent in Dallas to 4 percent in Bouston. Despite this strength, however, total regiStrations for the four centers were 3 percent
lower tllan in June 1969. Cumulative registrations for the first six months of the year were 7
percent lower than for the same period last year·
Department store sales in the Eleventh DiStrict were 2 percent higher in the four weej(s
ended July 25 than in the corresponding period
last year. Cumulative sales through that date
were also 2 percent higher than a year earlier.
Total loans and investments at weekly reporting banks in the Eleventh District rose sharplY
in the first two statement weeks in July, follow-
ing an increase that was less than usual for June.
The advance in early July largely reflected inCreased borrowings by financial institutions
Other than banks - mostly finance companies
- as well as additions by banks to their security
hOldings. Banks financed this credit expansion
Illainly through the issuance of large certificates
of deposit and by borrowing from the Federal
Reserve Bank.
The sizable increase in loans to nonbank financial institutions-which accounted for nearly all of a $195 million rise in total loans during
the period from May 27 through the statement
Week ended July 8 - represented the heavy use
of bank lines by finance companies, possibly in
r~sponse to recent difficulties in issuing commerCial paper. Business loans increased $7 million,
and real estate loans increased $24 million. ConsUlller instalment loans declined $4 million.
With the increased availability of funds, reporting banks added to their holdings of secUl'ities, particularly certificates of participation in
pools of Federal agency loans. They also replaced maturing short-term municipals with attractively priced long-term issues of municipal
governments. Bank holdings of U.S. Government securities rose $20 million, probably in
response to the underwriting of recent Treasury
financing.
Total deposits rose $57 million, despite a $14
million decline in demand deposits. This increase largely reflected greater sales of large
negotiable certificates of deposit after the lateJune suspension of Regulation Q ceilings on
CD's with maturities from 30 to 89 days. With
the increased availability of deposits, banks
further reduced their borrowings from nondeposit sources.
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
OKLAHOMA
DALLAS HEAD OFFICE TERRITORY
HOUSTON BRANCH TERRITOR Y
SAN ANTONIO BRANCH TERRITORY
EL PASO BRANCH TERRITORY
business review/august 1970
13
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thousands of borrels)
ACREAGE
(In thousands of acres)
For harvest
Harvested
------
PRODUCTION
(In thousond s of bushels)
=============================================~
Percent change f~
May
April
May
April
Ma}
A
Arizona
louisian l
New Me
Oklaho"
Texas . .
Total.
Indi
SOUR
1
-new
Ty~
Total no
wage
Manul
membet·
bank
Nonm
Min
The Madison-Southern National Bank, Houston, Texas, a newly organized
institution located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business July 17, 1970, as a member of the
Federal Reserve System. The new member bank has capital of $300,000, surplus
of $300,000, and undivided profits of $120,000. The officers are: Charles R.
Vickery, Jr., Chairman of the Board and President; Tom B. Hickman, Jr., Executive Vice President; and Ronald A. Faulkner, Cashier.
Cor
Tra
~
Tra
Fin!
Se r
Go
1
The Granbury State Bank, Granbury, Texas, an insured nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, June 24, 1970. The officers
are: Dr. L. G . Ballard, Chairman of the Board; Tom Holmes, President; Larry
H . Calhoun, Senior Vice President; and Melvin Tipton, Vice President and
Cashier.
Ariz
p- I
r- I
SOUR
new
pat·
banks
The Jetero Bank, Westfield, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in
the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, July 6, 1970. The officers
are: Willie H. Whitehead, President, and Kerny Rivette, Senior Vice President
and Cashier.
The North Freeway Bank, Houston, Texas, an insured nonmember bank
located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, July 17, 1970.
The officers are: W. S. Pebworth, Chairman of the Board; Charles J. Patronelia,
President; Lenard Self, Jr., Cashier; and Mary B. Parker, Assistant Cashier.
The Union State Bank, Beaumont, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, July 29, 1970.
The officers are: J. Henry Simpson, President; Donald E. Havins, Vice President;
and George W. Fant, Cashier.
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
WINTER WHEAT
(In thou sand s of borrols)
ACREAGE
(In thousand s of acre s)
For harve st
A
Ariz:ona
lo uisiant
New ME
Oklahon
Texa s . .
Total.
Indi
SOUR
1
Tatal no
wag e
Manul
Nonm
Min
COl
Tra
F
Tra
Fine
Ser
Go
1
Ariz
p- I
r-I
SOUR
Harvested
- - -- -
==================================================~
PRODUCTION
(In thousands of bu shels)
Perc ent change f~
May
April
May
April
STATISlilCAL
S~PPLEMENT.
to the
BUSINESS REVIEW
August 1970
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF DALLAS
CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING
COMMERCIAL BANKS
RESERVE POSI TIO NS OF MEMBER BANKS
El eventh Federal Reserve District
IAve ra ges of doily flg ures. In thousands of do ll ars}
Eleventh Federa l Reserve Distri ct
=
(In thou sands of dolla rs )
4 w eeks ended
Jul y 29,
1970
Item
June 24,
1970
July 30,
1969
ASSETS
Fe d eral fund s sold and secu rities pu rcha se d
und e r a greement s to rese ll . . . . . . . .. ... ... . . .
Oth er loan s a nd di scounts, g ro ss .. .. .. . . . . . .... .
Comm ercial and in dustria l loans. . ..... •.. .. . .
Agricultural loan s, excl uding CCC
certi fl cates of interest . ... . . ...... .. .....•
loons to brokers and d e al ers for
purcha si ng or corry ing:
U.S . Gove rnm e nt securiti es . . .. .. . . .. ... .. .
Oth e r se curi ties . . ••.. • . • •... .. .• •.. •• . .•
Oth er loans for purcha sing or ca rrying:
U.S . Gove rnm e nt se curiti es . .. . . . .. .. . .... .
Oth er se curiti es . . . . .. . .... . ... . .... . . . ..
577,725
6,039,927
537,750
6,039,34 1
243,650
6,151,647
2,894,7 17
2,949,883
3,024,521
100,861
106,133
116,524
656
34,700
500
34,313
501
42,946
82 1
390,200
1,265
391 ,563
190
379,506
204,462
361,697
609,434
5,085
8,414
727,291
136,251
371 ,247
622 ,825
6,1 75
9,695
727,465
151,484
420,211
625,449
8,201
8,345
694,860
0
70 1,589
2,575,607
0
682,026
2,523,865
Other • .• • • • .. •• ... •• ...• • •· ·•• ••• ••• • •
Real estate loan s• . ... . . ... .. ... . .. . .. .. . ..
loans to domestic comm ercial banks • .. • . ... . .
loons to foreign banks . .... .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .
Con sum er in stalm ent loon s . . .• ..
loans to for ei gn governments, offlcial
in stitution s, central bonks, internationa l
institution s . ..• • • . . . . . .. . .•. . . . .. . , . . . •.
..... . ..... .
Other loons •• •• •••. •• ••.• •• .. • •.• •• .. • • • •
Total investment s • . .. • ... ... ...... . ... . . ... . .
Total U .S. Gove rnm ent se curities • • • .. .•. ... • .•
Trea sury b ill s. .•• • ... .•.. . . ... • .. ... • . •.
Trea sury certiflcat es of ind ebt edn ess . ... •.. .
Trea sury not es and U .S. Governm ent
bond s maturing :
Within 1 year . • . .. .. . .. .••. . . .. •. . . . •
1 year to 5 y ears • • ... • •..... •. .... •• .
51,474
0
32,797
0
137,249
607,571
101,971
117,100
612,253
188,915
Afte r 5 years •• • • • • • • • ••• •• • • • ••.•• • • •
Obligations of states and political subdivision s:
Tox warrants and short-t erm notes an d bills • •
26,19 1
1,488,483
12,6 12
1,479,804
25,862
1,420,776
All other • • ••••. •• • • .•• •• .• • • •• • • •• · ••••
Other bonds, corporat e stocks, and securities!
C ertificates re prese nting participations in
Fed e ral agency loan s • . .. .... .... . .. .. .
All oth er (includ ing corporate stocks) • • . . ....
Ca sh it ems in proce ss of coll ection . . •.. . ... .•. ..
Rese rves with Fe de ral Rese rve Bank ••• • ... .. .•.•
Currency and coin . . • ... . . .... . ...•. ..... . . ..
Balances with banks in th e United States • .. ..• • ..
Ba lances with banks in foreign countri es • .. • . ....
Othe r a ssets (including inve stments in subsidiaries
not con solidated) .. . ..•.. ...• . .... . . .•. . . ..
108,695
66,743
1,058,445
713,944
90,210
399,210
7,939
82,5 13
69,348
1,1 13,923
670,182
89,486
42 3,800
8,256
24,758
79,971
1,014,681
623,262
84,015
455,606
6,505
485,379
524,051
TOTAL ASSETS •• • • . ••• • • •• •••• • • •• ..• • •
4 weeks ended
July 2, 1 ~
740,727
687,270
53,457
749,434
- 8,707
51,775
- 60,482
734,308
680,488
53 ,820
736,306
-1,998
33,647
-35,645
747,843
698,104
49,739
745,759
2,084
77,265
_75,181
769,558
585,326
184,232
749,665
19,893
8,658
11 ,235
782,505
601,303
181,202
754,778
27,727
12,986
14,74 1
772,605
593,886
178,719
748, 162
24,443
22,706
1,737
1,510,285
1,272,596
237,689
1,499,099
11,186
60,433
-49,247
1,516,813
1,281,791
235,022
1,49 1,084
25,729
46,633
-20,904
1,520,448
1,29 1,990
228,458
1,493,921
26,527
99,971
_73,444
RESERVE CITY 8ANKS
Tota l rese rves held • .. . . . . .. ...
Wi th Fed eral Reserv e Bonk . . . .
Currency and coin . . .. . ......
Re quire d rese rves . . ... . ... . . . .
Excess reserves . . . •. .. . .. .. ...
Borrowing s• .. .. .. .. . . •...... •
Free reserves •• • . •.. ..... . , . . .
40,210
0
135,054
609,794
89,173
Jun e 3, 1970
0
678,909
2,509,845
---11,502,175
loans to nonbank Anan d al in stitutions:
Sal es flnance, p ersonal flncnc e, factors,
and othe r business cre dit compani es ... . . . .
4 w eeks ended
J uly I , 1970
It em
COUNTRY 8AN KS
Tota l reserves held . ... , • •. .. . •
With Fed eral Reserve Bank .. . .
Currenc y and coin .. ... ... .. .
Required rese rves . . .• ..• . . . .••
Excess rese rves . . . • . ... . . . .. ..
Borrowing s• ..... ...• . ...•• ...
Free rese rves ... . ... .. . . •... . .
ALL MEM8ER BANKS
Total rese rv es held • . ......... .
With Fed eral Rese rve Bank . . . .
Curr ency and coin . .. .•.. ... •
Require d reserv es •• .... . . .. ...
Exce ss rese rves • •• . . ..•.• . ... .
Borrowing s. . •.. . . . . . . . . . .•. . .
Fre e re serves . ....• . . . . . • .. . ..
--
---- ---- ---958,478
879,588
885,495
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
(In thousands of do llars )
---11 ,948,386
11 ,930,654
======================================~~
J uly 29,
June 24,
july 30,
______________ em
It_ __________________l~ 7~______~~7 0~_____~
9~ 0
1 9~
_
969
Tota l gold certiflca te reserves . • .. . . • •. • . . ..
Discounts for member ba nks . .. • .• . •. .. •. • .•
Oth er d iscounts and advances . ... . .... . ... .
U.S. Governm ent secu rities • . . , . •. .• .. .••• .•
Tota l earning a ssets. • , • . ...... .. . . . . . . . . . .
Memb e r bonk re serve d epo sits.. . .. . . ••.• .. •
Federa l Re se rve notes in actua l circ ulation ..• • .
313,949
125,600
2,240
2,5 10,008
2,637,848
1,220,227
1,810,282
369,380
78,060
5,040
2,463,455
2,546,555
1,208,827
1,774,603
373.36~
48,53 0
3
2,24 1 ,8~Z
2,290'~61
1,123, 97
1,625,1
--------------------------------------~
412,964
COND ITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BA NKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve Distri ct
LIAB ILITI ES
(In mill ions of dollars)
9,107,562
9,199,273
---- ---5,655,875
9,059,979
5,620,194
3,854,030
279,834
13 1,935
1,238,267
---5,605,704
3,82 3,457
335,653
219,11 3
1,1 79,025
3,928,323
323,161
108,24 1
1,1 30,864
3,390
22,912
89,826
3,579,079
3,982
23,308
71,337
3,404,1 04
2,644
23,109
89,362
3,501,858
917,637
1,843,975
752,690
29,633
19,659
923,398
1,703,954
73 4,335
9,478
17,389
962,970
1,885,99 1
612,429
8,732
24,846
14,385
1,100
14,200
1,350
6,500
390
943,077
218,466
440,426
130 ,626
14,807
1,001,7 11
1,038,453
219,766
471,309
133,883
14,290
992,974
75 1,553
319,935
236,244
118,374
11,63 1
956,876
TOTAL L1A8ILITIES, RESERVES, AND
CAPITAL ACCO UNTS • • • •• . •• • . ... • ..• · 11,948,386
11 ,930,654
Total d e posit s • ........ • .. . • .... ... . ... . .. • .
Total d e mand d e posits • •.. .. .. ...• ... ..••
Individual s, pa rtn ership s, and corporation s•• . •
Stat es and political subdivi sion s . . . ..• .. . . ..
U.S. Governm ent . •.... • .. . .. • .. . ... . ...•
Bonks in the Unit ed Stat es• . .• ....... .• ... .
For ei gn :
Gov ernm ents, officia l in stitution s, centra l
banks, international in stitution s . . . . ... . .
Comm ercial ban ks . . .. ... . .. .. . ... .... .
C ertifl ed and offlcers' ch ecks, etc . . , ... .... .
Total tim e and saving s deposit s, •. ... .• . .. . . .
Individua ls, partn erships, and corporations: , ..
Saving s d e posits . .. ..... .. . . . . . . . .... .
Oth er tim e d eposits.. .. .. . . . .. . .... . .. .
States and political subdivi sions . .. . . .. ... . .
U.S . Gov ernm ent (including postal savings) • . •
Banks in th e Unite d Stat es.. . .. . .. . .. . . .. ..
For eign:
Governm ents, offlcia l in stitution s, central
bonks, int ernationa l in stituti ons . . . .. .. . .
Comm ercial banks.. . . .. .. .. . . . .... . . . .
Fe d eral fund s pu rcha sed and securiti es sold
und e r agr ee ments to re purcha se . .. , .. ... . .• ,
Oth er liabiliti es for borrowe d mon ey ••. .... . . . , .
Oth er liabiliti es . ... . . .. .. . . .... . ... . . . . .. •..
Reserves on loon s . .. . . ... . . . .. .... . ... . . . . . .
Reserves on secur iti es . . .. ... . . ... ...... . ... . .
Total capital accoun ts , . . . . ....... . .. . . . . .. .. .
- ---
Ma y 27,
1970
l oons and discounts, gross' • . . .. ..• . .•.•..
U .S. Governm ent obliga tions •• • . •. . . .. . •. •
O th er se curit ies . ..... .. .. . .. ... .. ••. .. .
Rese rves with Fed era l Resorve Bank . . . • .. ..
Cosh in vault . •... . . . ...... .•. . .• .. . . ..
Ba lance s with banks in th e Unit ed Stat es . •..
Balances with banks in for eign countri es e ... .
Ca sh items in process of coll ection . • ..• .• ..
Oth er assetso •••. ... .. . . .. ... .• ••.. ...•
11,853
1,989
3,297
1,209
267
1,17 1
10
1,27 1
989
11 ,62 1
1,988
3,323
1,180
262
1,161
9
1,224
936
TOTAL ASSETse • •• • ..•••.. •• • •• •..••
22,056
21,704
----
Demond d e posits of bonks . . • .. . . .. .• . , ..
Other d e mand deposits.... . ... ..••. . . .. •
Tim e d epo sits... • . . •• . ...• • .. .. . .. ... ..
1,539
8,689
7,382
1,502
8,67 1
7,395
~:598
Tota l deposits . . .. .• .. ... . . . .. . . . ....
Borrowing s, .. . . . .. . . .. ... . . .••. ... . .. .
Tota l capita l accounts e . .. . ... . ... • . . .. . •
17,610
1,3 25
1,358
1,763
17,568
1,151
1,225
1,760
TOTAL L1A81
L1T1ES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe ..•• • •..•• •• .• ••• •. . • •
22,056
21,704
ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOU NTS
Other liabilitles e . • ..••. . • . ..••• • • ••... •
- --11 ,502,175
~
June 25,
June 24,
1970
It em
1
Be fore July 2, 1969, t his it e m was publi shed on a net basi s.
e -
Estimatod.
~
11 ,31~
2,1 7
3,1 A
I 2Z 1
'Z5 8
1 ,1 5~
1 175
' 8Z 1
~
1 426
'775
---1 7'~~~
1'67 1
1 700
~
~
~
BANK DEB ITS, EN D-OF-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts in thousands, seasonally ad lusted )
~
~================================~~~~~~~==~~~======================================
DE81TS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOS ITS'
Percent change
June 1970 from
June
-
1970
Standard metropolitan
basis)
ARIZONA'T
lOUISIAN'A u~on ••... •• •••• .. •••• .. ••••••..••.. ..• •
.
$
onroe ••....... ..... .•........... .....
New
Shre veport .................. .. ..........
lex MEXICO: Roswell ' •. ••• .•... ••• ..••• . ••• . •• ••••
~:~~~~i~::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: ::
AS:
Beaumont·Port Arthur-Oronge . . . . . . . . . . . .......
Crown svill e-Harlingen-San Benito .•... . ......•...
~~~:':"i'. .•.• ·•. .• •• •. .
• • . •.
~~~~~~':::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :
H alveston- Texo s City •.•. . ...•... ... . ....... ..
McAllen· Pharr· Edinburg ....... . ...... . ..... . ...
f:~:~~~L·· • •· . • ··•.•·•·.•·.· • ·
Texarkana {Texas·Arkansa s) .. . ..... ......... . ..
~~i~t~: ~~i,;: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
10
1
01_28 c
"------ enters •• • . .• • . •.•••. ••.• •.•.. . .•• ••••• •. •
~ ~epOsits
6,403,608
2,802,972
9,575,328
900,264
2,141,940
5,678,028
9,6 12,060
6,295,668
1,868,976
4,896,948
439,680
124,554,660
7,426,248
21,270,924
2,886,108
98,481,060
955,536
4,782,864
1,686,060
1,852,488
1,552,548
1,257,096
17,442,180
1,120,644
1,559,436
2,323,200
3,362,808
2,105,004
Juno
May
1970
(Annual- rate
statistical area
1969
June
1970
1970
May
1970
1969
June
5
$ 237,955
82,672
253,576
36,424
99,200
163,592
3 14,417
237,606
75,095
206,796
30,719
2,203,058
234,335
644,67 1
115,933
2,529,088
38,649
171,475
100,909
132,105
93,121
73,074
640,446
64,599
69,753
94.420
120,492
111,710
26.5
33.1
39.1
25.1
21.5
35 .0
29.6
26 .8
25.0
23.8
14.3
56.9
31.7
31.2
25.4
39.5
25.3
29 .2
16.8
14 .0
16.9
17 .8
27.5
17.7
21.8
25 .1
28.2
18.5
25.5
32 .2
35.9
25 .6
21.2
36.4
26.1
25 .7
23.6
24.2
14.7
52.8
28. 1
39.0
24 .8
40.9
21.9
26.6
16.7
14 .0
18 .2
18.3
26.5
16.6
20.0
24.6
25.3
19 .1
25 .9
32.7
37.4
23.7
21.7
35.0
33.4
27.6
22.9
22.8
14.2
52.4
31.2
34.7
24 .8
39.1
21.5
30.1
17 .9
14.4
21.5
17.9
27.5
17.3
21.2
24 .5
25 .4
18.5
11
I
0
7
4
-5
14
4
3
9
8
0
8
3
18
2
9
-2
-3
3
4
9
-1
0
16
-2
4
$345,234,336
June 30,
17
10
27
13
4
13
1
2
13
7
5
11
9
12
13
12
12
0
5
1
10
9
11
11
-7
4
14
-2
13
7
3
15
-2
2
-2
8
6
7
-2
-4
11
13
-20
5
-1
15
16
2
0
1
3
4
7
11
6
15
-5
Annual rate
of turnover
6 months,
1970 from
1969
$9,175,890
37.8
37.1
37.0
of individuals, partnerships, and corporations and of stat os a nd political subdivisions.
Oun ty ba.I •.
GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
E)eventh Federal Reserve District
(Averages of daily flgures. In millions of dollars)
BUILD ING PERM ITS
~
GROSS DEMAND DEPOS ITS
VALUATION (Dollar amounts In thousands)
Date
Tota l
Reserve
city bo nks
1968: June • • •• • •
1969, June •.•••.
1970: January •••
February .. .
March • • •..
April ......
May .• • .• ,
9,548
10,209
10,793
10,256
10,284
10,497
10,233
10,265
4,453
4,758
4,910
4,625
4,727
4,819
4,671
4,748
Percent change
June 1970
from
NUM8ER
June
June
6 mos.
1970
~
6 mos .
1970
1970
1970
6 mon ths,
June
May
1970
1969
1970 from
1969
ARllONA
TUCson
626
3,616
$ 4,787
$ 25,805
11
-42
-22
69
528
378
2,53 1
629
4,285
7,386
16,537
-42
90
-43
15 1
233
2,950
2,246
9 13
432
2,006
11 ,963
2 18
2,708
2,303
433
17,134
299
1,232
340
453
495
340
7,497
403
185
1,2 13
422
241
1,064
6,2 14
1,431
1,299
2,260
29,588
729
7,552
15,696
295
43,695
405
4,716
552
807
5,450
96 1
10,198
1,806
1,009
4,316
579
3,770 -63
21 ,982 _12
55,989 -63
120
5,793
519
2,57 1
100
14,968
186,533 -29
684
2,474
51
46,866
234
47,501
3,391 -17
-3
227,347
4, 197 _81
46
26,436
2,381 -14
5,628 -38
6,368 4,331
149
5,884
32
50,762
225
7,225
631
5,153
23,296 -36
6.022 -63
-8 1
21
-35
73
566
-7
-1
286
-32
144
-79
87
207
83
-36
-7
131
47
58
-76
285
131
5
-48
42
-36
0
-52
4
3
18
_ 14
1
-74
9
108
55
-24
1
-6
80
19
_28
36
137
-31
62,943
$ 150,564
23
0
banks
Tota l
Reserve
city bonks
Country
bonks
5,095
5,451
5,883
5,63 1
5,557
5,678
5,562
5,517
6,964
7,634
7,108
7,145
7,231
7,328
7,394
7,39 1
2,847
2,925
2,568
2,554
2,581
2,634
2,659
2,651
4,1 17
4,709
4,540
4,591
4,650
4,694
4,735
4,740
0
-19
44
335
412
8ro
t .....
158
Co,;ns v", • . .••
76
DOli u, Christi ..
390
2,148
[)en~~~" •••••
43
EI Paso .... ··•
488
o"
F W.... • ..
422
GOlves:'c:'h ••••
H
n .....
80
oust
loredo n . .• .. .. 2,822
47
lUbb \ .... ..
Midl~~d····· • 3 17
Ode, .•...•
47
III
POrt A~th" '"
Son A ur .. • .
122
So. Angelo •• •
76
Sherl1l~t~nlo ••• 1,627
93
Te~a rka~' • • ••
44
Waco a ....
243
Wic~li"" ' "
1
a Fa lls ••
76
01 01
~es •. 11 ,444
TIME DEPOSITS
Country
lOUIS .... ... .
II, lANA
June .... . •
onroe·West
Sh~onroe .. "
•
leXAS veport ••••
Abil~~~' • • . • .•
A"'arill~" ' " •
",Ultin, ......
Beaul1l~n' •••••
$8 12,265
VALU E OF CO NSTRU CTION CONTRACTS
(In millions of dollars )
January·June
1970
May
1970
April
1970
1970
1969r
755
249
205
301
6,553
2,224
1,919
2,410
596
252
190
154
5,417
2,123
1,750
1,545
711
256
272
183
6,757
2,466
2,413
1,878
4,102
1,407
1,297
1,398
34,392
11,522
12,458
10,4 12
3,542
1,428
1,157
957
34,055
13,064
12,751
8,240
June
Area and type
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES' ................
Residentia l building •......
Nonresidential building ....
NanbuiJdlng construction .. .
UNITED STATES .. ..........
Residential building .. .. . . .
Nonr esi d ential building •.. .
Nonbuilding construction •• .
Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico , Oklahoma, and Texas .
Revised.
NOTE . Details may not odd to toto Is becou so of rounding.
1
r-
SOURCE : F. W. Dodge, McGraw·HIII, Inc.
CROP PRODUCTION
CROP ACREAGE
(In thousands of bushels)
(I n thou sa nds of acres )
TEXAS
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'
1970,
1970,
For
estimated
es timat ed
harvest
Jul y 1
Crop
Winter wheat .. . .
Corn •.. . .... ...
Oats ....... .. ..
Barley ••.• • ....•
Rice '! •. • ••......
Hay' •.• • ..• ..•.
Flaxsee d ..• . . ..
I ris h potato es" •.•
Sweet potatoe s" .
57,809
23,359
28, 140
4,394
21 ,436
3,983
1,1 27
4,216
910
Jul y 1
1968
1969
68,856
25, 124
25,460
3,290
21,646
3,45 1
1,300
4,437
780
84,150
26,052
19,822
3,348
27,164
4,587
742
4,382
960
1969
17 1,400
34 ,2 94
36,332
35,340
41,158
9,424
1,127
7,671
5,585
Crap
1968
197,619
34,266
33,058
29,096
42,420
9,136
1,300
8,084
5,200
218,974
36,871
25,450
26,856
53,306
10,4 18
742
7,624
5,120
Winter wheat. ...
Corn •.•. .. .....
Oats . . . ... . ....
Barley .•••...•.
Rye • . • ....• ..••
Rice •••.•••..•••
Sorghums •..••..
Hoy •.• .• •• .. • •
Peanuts •••••...•
1
.2
Floxseed •••...•
Arizona, loui siana, New Mexico, O klahoma, and Texas.
In thousands of bags containing 100 po unds eac h.
Iri sh potatoes • ••
Sweet potatoes ..
a I n thousands of tons.
• In thou sands of hundredweight.
SOURCE, U.S. Doportment of Agriculture.
1
--
harvest
1969
5,428
2,267
497
804
169
46
466
7.Q68
2,271
307
98
26
13
1968
4,675
2,869
571
670
94
38
548
7,362
1,976
30 1
100
27
12
4,125
3,825
50 1
583
124
33
597
7,362
2,376
298
55
27
12
--
He rvested ____
For
Harvested
1970
Cotton ••.. . .• • .
=
FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES'
TEXAS
1969
6,832
6,327
743
1.002
890
100
985
8,577
4,757
438
98
42
68
1968
6,016
7,289
796
856
674
87
1,159
8,961
4,467
432
100
46
64
1970
5,36 4
9,599
731
745
585
73
1.276
8949
4:80 4
429
55
43
64
Arizona, loui siana , New Mexico, O klahoma, and Te xas.
SOURCE, U . S. Department of Agriculture .
----
DAILY AVERAGE PRO DU CTION O F CRU DE OIL
TOTAL OIL WELLS DRILL ED
(In thousands of barre ls)
~
Percent
Pe rcent chang e from
1970
May
1970
1969r
May
1970
FOUR SOUTH WESTERN
STATES ••••..•......•...
6,745.3
2,463 .6
364 .8
621.4
3,295.5
673 .8
1,558.5
203 .3
77.2
782.7
9,501.4
6,829.6
2,476.3
365.6
622.6
3,365.1
686.4
1,591.7
207 .8
79.1
800.1
9,606.8
6,776.3
2,417 .8
353.8
621.3
3,383.4
704.0
1,575.3
186.4
83.9
833.8
9,6 10.6
-1.2
- .5
-.2
-.2
-2 .1
- 1.8
-2 .1
-2 .2
-2 .4
-2.2
-1.1
-.5
1.9
3.1
.0
-2 .6
-4.3
- 1. 1
9. 1
-8.0
-6.1
-1.1
louisiana ............ . ..
New Mex ico .............
Oklahoma •••.•.... • •...
Texas ...... . ...........
Gu lf Coast . ......•.. . •
West Texas . ..........
East Texa s (proper) ••..•
Panhandle ............
Rest of sta te •. •• . • .• ...
UNITED STATES ••.•......• .
June
cho ng
from 19
Fourth
Area
FOUR SOUTH WESTERN
STATES •...••.... • ..
louisiana . . . . . . . . . . .
Ollshor e ••••..•..•
Onshore . . .. . .....
N ew Mexico .•.......
Oklahamo .•• . ..••..
Texas .. ... . ...... . .
Ollshore .• .•....••
Onsho re ..........
UNITED STATES • • .....•
quarter
1969
June
Third
quart er
1969
June
Area
1969
Percent
change
cumulative
cu~
2, 19 1
365
140
225
106
476
1,244
3
1,24 1
4,367
1,957
290
115
175
167
373
1,1 27
1
1,126
3,545
12.0
25.9
21.7
28.6
-36 .5
27.6
10.4
200.0
10.2
23.2
7,679
1,16 1
375
786
574
1,623
4,321
9
4,3 12
14,368
10.0
_ 14.2
_22.0
_9.9
11.7
22.2
14.0
12.5
14.0
.3
1969
SO U RCE: Amorican Potroleum Institute.
SOURCES, American Petrol e um Institute.
U.S. Bureau of Mines .
66
---
Federal Reserve Bank of Dalles.
N O NAGR I CU LTURAL EMP LOYMENT
INDU STR IAL PRODUCTI ON
Five So uthwestern States 1
(Seasonally adiusted ind exes, 1957·59
Percent change
June 1970 from
Numb er of persons
June
May
June
1970p
May
1970
1969r
1970
1969
6,389,400
1,162,400
5,227,000
234,300
418,100
6,361,500
1,156,100
5,205,400
229,000
412,000
6,255,700
1,183,600
5,072,100
236,700
415,100
0.4
.5
.4
2.3
1.5
2.1
-1.8
3.1
-1.0
.7
469,500
1,478,700
326,500
1,036,400
1,263,500
462,700
1,470,000
322,200
1,020,400
1,289,100
456,700
1,4 23 ,400
310,900
997,400
1,231,900
1.5
.6
1.3
1.6
-2.0
2.8
3.9
5.0
3.9
2.6
June
Type of employment
Total nonagricultural
wage and sala ry workers ..
Manufacturing ..... ... . ..
Nonmanufacturing .....•..
Mining . . . ...... .. . ...
Construction •....•.••. •
Tran sportati on and
public utilities . . .... . .
Trad e •••••..... . ..•.•
Finance • • •..•..... . •.•
Service .. ... . . . ...... .
Government . . ..•......
_____A _ o_o _ y_ e_o_ _ e_ ________9 7 0~p______'~ 7~______~9 7~0_____ ~
_r e_ _nd_t_ p_ f in_d_ x
1 __
9_ 0
1~
TEXAS
Tatalindustria l production ..... .
Manufactu ring. . . . . • • . . • • • • . . . .
Durable •.••..... .. .... .. ••.•
Mi~~~~~r~~~e::::::::::::::::::
Arizona, louisiana, New Mexico , Oklahoma, and Texas.
p Prelimi nary.
r Revised .
SO U RCE: Stote emp loyment cgencies.
177.0
199.7
209.8
179.1
200.3
212.4
178.6r
200.0r
216.3
mt
174.7
195.8
2 15.:
193 .0
192.3
189.2r
m:8
Utilities . . . . . • . . . ••. . . . . . . . . . . .
m:~
m:~
242.3
UNITED STATES
Tota l industria l production... . . .
168.6
169.1
170.2r
173.7
•
174.8
M anu f ac t urlng. . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . •
168.0
168.3
169.7r
178. 3
Durable..... . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . .
167.0
167.5
168.8r
5
.~ondurab/e.... . . . . . . . . . . • . • •
169.2
169.3
170.9r
'l ~~:4
Mining. • • . . . . . . • • . . . . • • . . • • • •
133.4
135.3
133.9r
215.6
__Ut_ iti~ .~~~.---- .-.-.. .-.-. - - .-.-. - •--___5 ______2 _ 0______ 3_ ._ r ___
_ il_ es- . .. . . . .
•.
•
23 _.5
_34_.
2_ 3 8_
~
p -
1
= 100)
=============================== June
~
June
May
April
r -
Preliminary .
Revised.
SOURCES, Boord of Governors of the Federa l Reserve System.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dalla s.
@FedFRASER