As you commute across South Dakota's wide open spaces this morning, you probably won't be surprised to learn that we South Dakotans spend more of their income on gasoline than many other Americans. In
this report from March 2010, the National Resources Defense Council calculates that the average South Dakota driver spends over $1600 a year on gasoline. That's 4.3% of our average income.
By that score, we rank 15th in the nation, just a tick behind our bigger-spending but also bigger-earning neighbors in North Dakota. Poor Mr. Kurtz and his Montana neighbors rank second in the nation, spending over $2000 a year on gasoline, 5.9% of their annual paychecks. Gasoline eats up the largest chunk of paychecks in Mississippi.
State | Avg % Income spent on gasoline | Avg amt spent on gasoline | Avg income | Rank by gas % | Rank by gas amt | rank by income |
Mississippi | 6.22% | $1,880.95 | $30,240 | 1 | 4 | 50 |
Montana | 5.88% | $2,017.96 | $34,319 | 2 | 1 | 38 |
Louisiana | 5.26% | $1,908.72 | $36,287 | 3 | 3 | 30 |
Oklahoma | 5.12% | $1,830.77 | $35,757 | 4 | 5 | 32 |
South Carolina | 5.06% | $1,638.98 | $32,391 | 5 | 11 | 44 |
Kentucky | 5.02% | $1,583.50 | $31,544 | 6 | 18 | 49 |
Texas | 4.87% | $1,818.89 | $37,349 | 7 | 6 | 26 |
Maine | 4.65% | $1,700.66 | $36,573 | 8 | 9 | 28 |
Georgia | 4.64% | $1,595.08 | $34,377 | 9 | 16 | 37 |
Idaho | 4.54% | $1,467.33 | $32,320 | 10 | 22 | 45 |
Arkansas | 4.52% | $1,459.02 | $32,279 | 11 | 25 | 47 |
Tennessee | 4.49% | $1,568.96 | $34,943 | 12 | 19 | 35 |
Utah | 4.44% | $1,400.80 | $31,550 | 13 | 35 | 48 |
North Dakota | 4.33% | $1,717.29 | $39,660 | 14 | 8 | 18 |
South Dakota | 4.32% | $1,626.29 | $37,646 | 15 | 13 | 24 |
New Mexico | 4.30% | $1,437.33 | $33,426 | 16 | 28 | 43 |
Michigan | 4.20% | $1,436.89 | $34,212 | 17 | 29 | 39 |
Kansas | 4.13% | $1,585.31 | $38,385 | 18 | 17 | 23 |
North Carolina | 4.10% | $1,440.40 | $35,132 | 19 | 27 | 34 |
Wyoming | 4.07% | $1,930.68 | $47,437 | 20 | 2 | 6 |
West Virginia | 4.06% | $1,311.61 | $32,306 | 21 | 40 | 46 |
California | 4.04% | $1,727.67 | $42,764 | 22 | 7 | 9 |
Missouri | 4.02% | $1,463.53 | $36,406 | 23 | 23 | 29 |
Iowa | 4.00% | $1,486.22 | $37,156 | 24 | 20 | 27 |
Rhode Island | 3.94% | $1,622.61 | $41,183 | 25 | 14 | 15 |
Wisconsin | 3.91% | $1,461.35 | $37,375 | 26 | 24 | 25 |
Hawaii | 3.91% | $1,649.52 | $42,187 | 26 | 10 | 13 |
Ohio | 3.88% | $1,383.68 | $35,662 | 28 | 37 | 33 |
Minnesota | 3.78% | $1,601.12 | $42,358 | 29 | 15 | 11 |
Alabama | 3.76% | $1,257.58 | $33,446 | 30 | 48 | 42 |
Vermont | 3.75% | $1,446.03 | $38,561 | 31 | 26 | 21 |
Indiana | 3.70% | $1,264.65 | $34,180 | 32 | 46 | 40 |
Virginia | 3.67% | $1,264.48 | $34,454 | 33 | 47 | 36 |
Oregon | 3.60% | $1,302.80 | $36,189 | 34 | 42 | 31 |
Nevada | 3.54% | $1,403.87 | $39,657 | 35 | 34 | 19 |
Arizona | 3.53% | $1,188.45 | $33,667 | 36 | 50 | 41 |
Delaware | 3.52% | $1,419.34 | $40,322 | 37 | 32 | 16 |
Illinois | 3.44% | $1,434.47 | $41,700 | 38 | 30 | 14 |
Nebraska | 3.39% | $1,309.37 | $38,624 | 39 | 41 | 20 |
Alaska | 3.39% | $1,475.74 | $43,532 | 39 | 21 | 7 |
Florida | 3.36% | $1,291.67 | $38,443 | 41 | 43 | 22 |
Washington | 3.31% | $1,409.14 | $42,572 | 42 | 33 | 10 |
Pennsylvania | 3.27% | $1,315.34 | $40,224 | 43 | 39 | 17 |
New Jersey | 3.23% | $1,635.08 | $50,622 | 44 | 12 | 3 |
Colorado | 3.00% | $1,266.50 | $42,217 | 45 | 45 | 12 |
New Hampshire | 2.96% | $1,279.05 | $43,211 | 46 | 44 | 8 |
Maryland | 2.90% | $1,425.42 | $49,152 | 47 | 31 | 4 |
Massachusetts | 2.60% | $1,318.18 | $50,699 | 48 | 38 | 2 |
New York | 2.56% | $1,216.06 | $47,502 | 49 | 49 | 5 |
Connecticut | 2.52% | $1,391.18 | $55,206 | 50 | 36 | 1 |
Spending on gasoline as percentage of income.
Income calculated from given data on percentage and amount spent on gasoline.
Source: NRDC, March 2010
Three interesting correlations pop out of these numbers. First, check out the oil-producing states. Down by the rigs and refineries in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, folks are still spending a higher proportion of their income on gasoline. North Dakota has more oil fields than South Dakota, and North Dakotans have similar open-country driving needs as South Dakotans, but they are paying more for gasoline. Alaska defies that apparent relation, paying less than most states for gasoline and ranking 40th on gasoline spending as percentage of income. But I wonder: given that possible relation—or lack thereof—between oil production and spending on gasoline, would South Dakota enjoy any gasoline savings if Hyperion built the Union County refinery?
A more solid numerical correlation: compare gasoline spending as percentage of income with income itself. I run those numbers through my spreadsheet and get a correlation of -0.69. In other words, the poorer the state, the bigger the chunk of income one spends on gasoline. That reflects, perhaps, the inelasticity of gasoline demand: even if you're making less, you still have to drive around. But a lot of those states at the bottom of the list are spending less in dollar terms as well as percentage terms. Places like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York also have pretty good mass transit.
One more correlation: the states spending higher percentages of income on gasoline look pretty conservative. The states at the other end of the list look pretty liberal. The point of the NRDC report was to highlight the states that are most vulnerable to oil price shocks. So we could read this data counterintuitively: the conservatives who could benefit most from getting America off its oil addiction and adopting energy policies that would insulate us from oil price shocks are the most inclined to oppose legislation on climate change and energy security that could get us off oil.
Or we could say the above split is perfectly logical: the liberal states are already kicking the gas habit, so they don't mind carbon taxes and other legislation that drive investment in other fuels and raise prices at the pumps they whizz by on their buses and bikes.