ADVERTISEABOUT USSUBMIT A STORYSUBSCRIBETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY
Visit our family of Brands

Texas ranks as No. 2 manufacturing hub in U.S., behind only California

by the numbers

A new study puts Texas at No. 2 among the states when it comes to manufacturing. Photo via Getty Images

Texas ranks among the country’s biggest hubs for manufacturing, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by Chinese manufacturing components supplier YIJIN Hardware, puts Texas at No. 2 among the states when it comes to manufacturing-hub status. California holds the top spot.

YIJIN crunched data from the U.S. Census Bureau, International Trade Administration, and National Association of Manufacturers to analyze manufacturing activity in each state. The study weighed factors such as number of manufacturing establishments, number of manufacturing employees, total value of manufacturing output, total manufacturing exports and manufacturing’s share of a state’s gross domestic product.

Here are Texas’ figures for those categories:

  • 19,526 manufacturing establishments
  • 847,470 manufacturing employees
  • Total manufacturing output of $292.6 billion
  • Total manufacturing exports of $291.9 billion
  • 11.3 percent share of state GDP

According to Texas Economic Development & Tourism, the state’s largest manufacturing sectors include automotive, tech, petroleum, chemicals, and food and beverage.

“The Lone Star State is truly a manufacturing powerhouse,” the state agency says.

In an October speech, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott praised the state’s robust manufacturing industry.

“We are proud that Texas is home to a booming manufacturing sector,” he said. “Thanks to our strong manufacturing sector, ‘Made in Texas’ has never been a bigger brand.”

Houston is a cornerstone of Texas’ manufacturing industry. The region produces more than $75 billion worth of goods each year, according to the Greater Houston Partnership. That makes Houston the second-ranked U.S. metro area for manufacturing GDP. The more than 7,000 manufacturing establishments in the area employ over 223,000 people.

“As one of the most important industrial bases in the world, Houston has access to many global markets thanks to its central location within the U.S. and the Americas,” the partnership says.

From Your Site Articles
The report ranked each state on both its home and auto efficiency. Photo via Getty Images

Here's how Texas ranks as an energy efficient state

by the numbers

How energy efficient is the Lone Star State? A new report finds that Texas has some room for improvement in that department.

In its 2024 "Most & Least Energy-Efficient States" report, WalletHub ranks Texas at No. 36 out of the 50 states with a score of 47.5 out of 100 points.

The report ranked each state on both its home and auto efficiency. Texas came in No. 32 for home energy efficiency, which factored in the National Weather Service's annual degree days.

For auto efficiency, Texas came in at No. 38, but ranked No. 43 for vehicle-fuel efficiency specifically and No. 20 for transportation efficiency.

"We divided the annual vehicle miles driven by gallons of gasoline consumed to determine vehicle-fuel efficiency and measured annual vehicle miles driven per capita to determine transportation efficiency," according to WalletHub, which used data from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Energy Information Administration, and U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration.


Source: WalletHub

Texas receives mixed reviews when it comes to energy reports from WalletHub. A June report found that Texas ranked as the fourth cheapest state for energy, and in April the state was found to be the thirteenth least green state.

Zooming in on Houston, the reports don't look any better. Earlier this month, the Bayou City was ranked the third worst metro when it comes to the country's greenest cities.

Yikes, Houston is very far from being considered among the greenest cities in the country. Photo via Getty Images

Houston receives abysmal ranking on list of greenest cities in the US

room for improvement

Bad news, Houston. The Bayou City is the third worst metro when it comes to the country's greenest cities.

According to WalletHub's recently released Greenest Cities in America report, Houston is No. 98 out of 100 of the largest cities that were ranked in the study, which was based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Trust for Public Land, U.S. Department of Energy - The Alternative Fuels Data Center, and more.

“There are plenty of things that individuals can do to adopt a green lifestyle, from recycling to sharing rides to installing solar panels on their homes. However, living in one of the greenest cities can make it even easier to care for the environment, due to sustainable laws and policies, access to locally-grown produce and infrastructure that allows residents to use vehicles less often," says Chip Lupo, WalletHub Analyst. "The greenest cities also are better for your health due to superior air and water quality.”

Houston scored 36.88 points out of 100, and comes in dead last on the environment ranking. Here's how the city performs when it comes to the other metrics:

  • No. 87 for transportation
  • No. 52 for energy sources
  • No. 61 for lifestyle and policy
  • No. 91 for greenhouse-gas emissions per capita
  • No. 30 for percent of green space
  • No. 86 for median air quality index
  • No. 97 for annual excess fuel consumption
  • No. 56 for percent of commuters who drive
  • No. 39 for walk score
  • No. 33 for farmers markets per capita

The big winners on the report are mostly on the West Coast. Of the top 10, six cities are from California. These are the greenest cities, per the report:

  1. San Diego, California
  2. Washington, D.C.
  3. Honolulu, Hawaii
  4. San Francisco, California
  5. San Jose, California
  6. Seattle, Washington
  7. Oakland, California
  8. Portland, Oregon
  9. Fremont, California
  10. Irvine, California
Texas isn't seen on the list until Austin, which ranked No. 26. The rest of the major Lone Star State major metros include San Antonio at No. 44, Fort Worth at No. 76, and Dallas at No. 81.
While this report is pretty damning, there's not a general consensus that all hope is lost for Houston when it comes to being green. Last year, the city was ranked as having the lowest carbon footprint, based on a report from Park Sleep Fly.

However, WalletHub's report has pretty consistently ranked Houston low on the list. Last year, Houston was slightly higher up at No. 95. In 2022 and 2021, the city claimed the No. 93 spot.

In addition to its No. 22 overall ranking, Texas took first place in the "Vulnerability to Climate Change" category.

Texas named most vulnerable state to climate change in new report

lone star disappointment

The Lone Star State performed most averagely in a new report that ranked all 50 states on environmental protection.

Texas ranked No. 22 on the report from SmileHub, a nonprofit tech platform using data to evaluate charities. The report analyzed 23 metrics — from energy efficiency score and industrial toxins per square mile of land area to climate change vulnerability — factoring in data from U.S. Census Bureau, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Agriculture, and more.

"The U.S. produces over 292 million tons of waste per year, or over 4.9 pounds per person per day, according to the latest data from the Environmental Protection Agency," reads the report. "Additionally, due to pollution, California, Oregon, Michigan, Indiana and South Carolina each have over 12,000 miles of river unsuitable for human contact. Pollution and waste are issues across the U.S., but some states work harder than others to limit their impact."

In addition to its middle-of-the-pack No. 22 overall ranking, Texas took first place in the "Vulnerability to Climate Change" category. Here's how else the state measured up:

  • No. 18 – Environmental Protection Charities per Capita
  • No. 36 – Share of State Land Designated for Parks and Wildlife
  • No. 28 – Energy Efficiency Score
  • No. 28 – Share of Population Using Green Transportation
  • No. 33 – Total Tonnage of Landfill Waste per Capita
  • No. 28 – Industrial Toxins per Square Mile of Land Area

It's not the first time the state performed poorly on recent environmental reports. In April, WalletHub evaluated the current health of states' environment and residents’ environmental-friendliness. Texas ranked No. 38, meaning it was the thirteenth least green state, only scoring 50.40 points out of 100.

Additionally, Houston has stood out for the wrong reasons. In May, Houston was ranked as the No. 15 most polluted city in the U.S. according to data compiled by the National Public Utilities Council. No other Texas city appears in the ranking. Three California cities — Bakersfield, Visalia, and Fresno — took the top three spots.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston's KBR tapped to provide tech for first SAF plant in Kazakhstan

clean deals

Houston-based engineering and technology firm KBR Inc. has been tapped to provide technology for Kazakhstan's first sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production plant.

KazMunayGas-Aero LLP (KMG-Aero), a subsidiary of Kazakhstan’s national oil and gas company KazMunayGas, and KazFoodProducts awarded the contract to KBR for the project. The plant will use the alcohol-to-jet (AtJ) process for producing aviation fuel and aims to support President Kassym-Jomart Kemeluly Tokayev’s goal of boosting Kazakhstan's profile as a global aviation player, according to a news release from KBR.

"We are honored to support KMG-Aero and KFP in advancing the national commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing the pivotal role of aviation decarbonization in achieving these strategic objectives,” Jay Ibrahim, president of KBR Sustainable Technology Solutions, said in the release.

KBR will provide its PureSAF technology and engineering design for the project. Invented and developed by Swedish Biofuels AB, the PureSAF tech will be used to convert alcohol-based feedstocks into SAF. The PureSAF Technology can process multiple feedstocks—like bioethanol, syngas, carbon dioxide and hydrogen—and convert them to SAF, diesel and gasoline, according to KBR.

"KBR’s PureSAF is a feed-flexible, bankable technology that is designed to deliver high SAF yields and supports the project across the full lifecycle,” Ibrahim added in the release. “We look forward to closely collaborating and supporting the successful execution of this landmark SAF project.”

Earlier this summer, KBR was also chosen to provide technology for what’s expected to be Asia's first commercial-scale ethanol-to-jet (SAF) plant. The plant has a planned production capacity of up to 100,000 tons of SAF per year.

In addition to the SAF projects, KBR also announced this month that it has been selected by ORNX Green Hydrogen to provide proprietary ammonia technologies for a low-cost green ammonia project in Morocco.

The commitments come as KBR shifts its focus solely toward sustainability technology and services. The company is in the process of spinning off its Mission Technology Solutions business, which KBR recently announced will be named Trinzic. The remaining company, "New KBR," will serve the ammonia and syngas, chemical and petrochemicals, clean refining and circular economy markets.

Army to build nuclear microreactors at 5 U.S. bases, including Texas

Nuclear News

The U.S. Army announced Wednesday that it plans to add nuclear microreactors at five military bases from New York to Texas as a reliable source of energy independent of the commercial electric grid.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration pushes hard to develop the next generation of nuclear power, including billions in loans for large nuclear reactors to meet skyrocketing power demand from data centers and a pilot program to boost advanced reactor designs and projects for military and civilian use. No nuclear microreactors are supplying power to the commercial electric grid in the United States today.

Five companies selected by the Army will be awarded up to $2.2 billion in total over five years to own, construct and operate the microreactors, if they hit set milestones along the way for their performance. The Army expects that more than 20 nuclear microreactors will be built and operated.

Army and industry officials say microreactors offer a resilient power source for critical infrastructure at military installations in case the grid fails. Reactors can run for years without refueling.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the awards will accelerate the military’s ability “to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations. We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids,” he said.

The grants are part of the Army's “Janus Program” launched last year to deliver next-generation nuclear energy. Officials hope to push nuclear development forward so that advanced reactor designs move beyond experiments and prototypes to provide power for years to come. This will be the “spear tip,” said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment.

“That is the transition that we are trying to effect here,” he said on a call with reporters Wednesday. “These are not meant to be Army-specific designs.”

Critics of building more nuclear reactors say they’re too expensive and riskier than other energy sources. The Army program is using the military's “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can't find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors, said Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.

The reactors will be licensed by the Army, rather than the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses commercial nuclear reactors. Kuperman said it's “a dangerous scam on many levels.”

Waksman said these reactors will shut down safely in case of a failure, they're small and the Army wouldn't add them to installations without being certain they are safe. He said the Army is working on a deal with the Energy Department to remove radioactive waste, and there won't be any long-term storage on these installations.

The Army is working to align its regulatory processes as much as possible, Waksman said, so that companies won’t need major changes to their designs to be later licensed by the NRC. Along with federal funding, the Army expects billions of dollars in private capital investment.

Army leads the military’s adoption of nuclear energy

President Donald Trump signed executive orders in May 2025 to speed up the development of nuclear power. The Army was tasked with ensuring that an advanced reactor would start operating at a domestic military installation no later than Sept. 30, 2028. The Janus program is named for the ancient Roman god of transitions.

Officials know that delivering nuclear power to a military base will be a challenge, so they picked five companies in case one or more fail, Waksman said. The selected companies are: Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWXT at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the Army to select Fort Drum. The critical missions Fort Drum supports require secure power generation, the New York Democrat said.

The military installations will remain connected to the grid. The reactors would not completely power them. Each reactor will provide between 1 megawatt to 20 megawatts of power, depending on the company's design. Major bases use as much power as a small city. Antares and Radiant are planning to deliver their reactors in three-packs, Waksman said.

The Army now uses diesel as a primary backup for critical infrastructure. But in a conflict, Waksman said, the Army may not be able to move fossil fuels easily wherever it needs them.

“That makes nuclear energy just a natural game changer,” he said. “It makes sense for the Army to take the lead here.”

A reactor at Fort Belvoir in Virginia, completed in 1957, was the first nuclear power reactor to provide electricity to a commercial power grid in the United States for an extended period, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Companies say this will accelerate US nuclear development

California-based Antares reached a crucial milestone under the U.S. pilot program that could allow it to produce electricity at Idaho National Lab next year. The company said the Army's announcement extends its momentum. Westinghouse Government Services said it’s proud to support the Army’s efforts to strengthen energy security and innovate.

Tori Shivanandan, president and chief operating officer of California-based Radiant, said the Army’s $750 million award “shows confidence in Radiant’s product and ability to manufacture, deploy and safely operate nuclear microreactors for the American military.” The Janus program “will build a stronger and more resilient America,” she said.

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems said its reactor is designed to operate in remote, off-grid and extreme environments for 40 years. It said it will draw on more than 70 years of nuclear expertise to provide safe, dependable and independent power for the military.

Rex Geveden, BWXT's president and chief executive officer, said, “As we commence work on the Janus program, we are delivering the nation’s most credible and reliable path to deployable nuclear power.”

Energy giant Shell lists Houston HQ for sale for $325 million

asset offload

Energy giant Shell has put its U.S. headquarters in Houston’s Energy Corridor on the market and is exploring the sale of its U.S. chemical business.

Green Street News reported Shell just listed its longtime Energy Corridor campus at 150 N. Dairy Ashford Road. The asking price is $325 million, The Real Deal reported. Shell plans to lease back half of the nearly 1.5 million-square-foot Woodcreek campus for 15 years.

A sale-leaseback deal could transform the 43.6-acre campus into a multitenant hub, CoStar News reported.

“Houston is a critical hub for Shell globally and the headquarters of our U.S. businesses,” a Shell spokesperson told the Houston Business Journal. “We remain committed to Houston and are evaluating opportunities to optimize our Woodcreek campus as part of our ongoing review of workplace needs while maintaining a strong presence in the city.”

Shell occupied its first building at the West Houston campus in 1980. The company employs more than 6,000 people in Texas.

Shell is one of the highest-profile businesses occupying space in the Energy Corridor. It’s home to 67,000 workers, more than 27 million square feet of office and mixed-use space, and 3.8 million square feet of retail and restaurant space.

Shell considers $8B sale of chemical business

As the company seeks to unload its Woodcreek campus, The Financial Times reported Shell is looking into selling its U.S. chemical business. The price tag: $8 billion.

Potential buyers include Spring-based ExxonMobil and Houston-based LyondellBasell.

Shell operates four chemical plants in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, producing an array of chemicals for use in plastics, detergents and pharmaceuticals.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan said last year that the company had spent $45 billion in capital “that is underperforming for us,” split between its chemical business and renewable energy arm.

Shell also agreed to sell its solar and wind power business in India this summer. Read more here.

View All Listings