Table 142. Federal obligations for R&D plant for selected agencies, by state or location: FYs 2006–14

(Dollars in millions)

State or location	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
All locations	2,093.1	2,111.0	1,893.3	3,591.3	6,563.3	4,100.5	2,088.9	1,856.0	2,178.2
Alabama	6.4	1.4	2.6	4.2	98.1	93.2	3.4	39.3	12.5
Alaska	4.8	7.6	3.6	173.5	57.8	6.3	6.6	7.8	8.1
Arizona	3.6	62.6	5.7	20.5	194.9	30.3	2.9	1.0	29.2
Arkansas	1.7	8.6	6.1	8.9	28.5	6.4	5.9	3.0	5.6
California	427.7	404.8	291.0	475.5	1,087.8	997.4	117.9	166.2	246.5
Colorado	97.7	183.8	115.9	279.5	300.0	140.6	108.2	150.9	170.4
Connecticut	4.3	1.9	5.6	3.1	123.2	93.7	1.7	1.5	3.1
Delaware	*	*	0.4	0.5	13.5	0.4	0.8	0.2	1.1
District of Columbia	105.8	73.4	76.7	180.4	364.9	236.9	135.4	167.5	225.1
Florida	1.6	11.4	12.9	56.7	140.7	90.4	47.9	37.6	104.0
Georgia	128.7	131.7	36.0	53.8	58.5	45.4	50.8	92.4	37.3
Hawaii	5.6	8.0	3.1	25.3	38.1	23.3	15.4	13.0	15.2
Idaho	7.0	8.7	5.9	16.6	25.2	30.9	41.0	1.2	2.6
Illinois	84.6	89.2	61.7	233.8	281.3	115.4	245.0	103.4	108.6
Indiana	2.7	4.1	3.7	7.5	34.9	6.6	2.2	2.6	1.4
Iowa	62.3	64.4	11.3	11.1	28.3	7.1	8.0	7.5	3.7
Kansas	0.3	1.6	0.4	2.9	12.7	4.4	5.5	2.5	1.0
Kentucky	7.2	0.8	5.6	2.5	21.8	4.6	8.5	0.8	0.7
Louisiana	36.7	6.2	2.8	26.7	28.4	14.9	1.2	12.2	1.9
Maine	3.8	1.8	0.8	6.3	1.4	1.5	0.1	1.7	0.8
Maryland	250.5	157.1	262.1	238.7	1,137.3	404.9	235.3	263.7	202.7
Massachusetts	49.1	32.7	13.9	48.8	102.7	30.8	28.0	13.9	26.8
Michigan	3.5	2.6	1.3	11.3	45.0	3.5	23.8	24.5	59.6
Minnesota	0.8	4.7	0.9	8.5	24.1	24.0	2.1	2.2	3.1
Mississippi	20.5	19.4	3.1	25.3	77.6	22.0	13.6	14.5	14.1
Missouri	6.3	1.3	1.9	5.8	30.5	4.2	7.1	2.9	9.8
Montana	6.5	1.4	0.9	2.0	23.3	0.4	0.0	1.0	0.4
Nebraska	0.7	0.7	1.0	0.9	22.2	0.8	0.5	0.5	1.2
Nevada	40.9	32.5	4.3	1.2	1.8	4.1	1.1	0.3	0.6
New Hampshire	4.0	1.1	0.8	2.1	11.1	1.6	2.0	1.3	0.5
New Jersey	56.9	90.2	53.3	82.8	74.5	40.0	52.1	55.5	71.5
New Mexico	110.8	29.2	184.6	108.7	190.5	96.8	54.2	82.9	90.4
New York	100.8	80.4	81.7	326.0	309.7	210.5	186.2	94.1	172.9
North Carolina	4.1	3.0	4.9	12.2	36.7	8.8	10.7	7.4	8.0
North Dakota	0.3	0.0	0.7	2.0	5.9	0.4	0.7	0.0	*
Ohio	17.0	21.5	16.7	24.3	100.5	55.2	61.6	4.7	4.2
Oklahoma	0.9	2.5	12.8	5.7	19.0	13.1	10.6	8.2	7.4
Oregon	2.8	4.1	2.9	4.9	35.9	18.1	9.6	9.6	12.2
Pennsylvania	17.4	12.9	35.0	37.8	127.1	15.2	23.3	13.0	10.4
Rhode Island	1.0	0.1	0.8	4.7	6.1	2.6	6.5	6.2	18.0
South Carolina	3.5	7.3	11.4	14.7	24.5	19.0	16.2	13.2	16.0
South Dakota	0.5	0.5	0.3	2.2	2.6	0.8	0.6	1.1	1.8
Tennessee	111.8	143.6	188.8	330.1	371.6	315.3	248.3	223.4	292.9
Texas	42.1	7.5	20.6	39.9	430.3	428.7	34.8	15.0	9.2
Utah	0.5	3.9	1.9	83.7	12.1	1.5	2.0	3.6	1.4
Vermont	0.3	0.2	0.8	0.6	3.2	1.4	0.5	0.3	1.6
Virginia	129.0	283.9	268.9	268.6	215.1	344.7	169.7	131.9	103.9
Washington	30.0	29.6	13.5	215.2	89.0	48.8	52.3	40.8	35.3
West Virginia	20.7	16.0	13.1	52.2	35.7	21.4	14.9	0.2	14.6
Wisconsin	65.1	47.1	30.6	36.9	33.3	10.0	11.3	5.7	7.2
Wyoming	0.4	0.6	0.0	0.5	1.2	0.5	0.3	1.2	0.7
Outlying areas	0.4	1.6	8.0	3.6	23.3	1.5	0.5	0.6	0.8
Puerto Rico	0.4	1.6	4.4	3.6	15.9	1.5	0.5	0.6	0.8
Other areas^a	0.0	0.0	3.6	*	7.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offices abroad^b	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

NOTES: Because of rounding, detail may not add to total. Eleven agencies are required to report data for this section of the survey: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense (DOD), Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); and the National Science Foundation. Obligations of these 11 agencies represented over 98% of federal R&D plant obligations in FY 2014. Although the nongeographic historical tables incorporate corrections to previously reported data that have been submitted by reporting agencies, corresponding corrections to geographic distributions are rarely obtainable. Geographic distribution of DOD development funding to industry reflects location of prime contractors and not the numerous subcontractors who perform much of the R&D. In FY 2006, NASA reclassified as operational costs funding for Space Operations, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, and the James Webb Space Telescope that previously had been reported as R&D plant. In FY 2010, NASA resumed reporting International Space Station (ISS) obligations as R&D plant. In FY 2012, NASA began reporting ISS obligations as research rather than R&D plant. In FY 2013, NASA revamped their reporting process so that the final data for FYs 2012–14 forward are not directly comparable with totals reported in previous years. In FY 2010, EPA was unable to report R&D plant by performer or by location. Percentage distributions calculated from EPA's data submission for FY 2009 were used to estimate its FY 2010 R&D plant by performer and its location. FYs 2009 and 2010 obligations include additional funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.