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

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

room for improvement

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

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.

From Your Site Articles
Texas's evolving energy landscape means affordability for residents, a new report finds. Photo via Pexels

Here's how Texas ranks when it comes to energy affordability

$$$

The Lone Star State is an economical option when it comes to energy costs, one report has found.

WalletHub, a personal finance website, analyzed energy affordability across the 50 states in its new report, Energy Costs by State in 2024, which looked at residential energy types: electricity, natural gas, motor fuel and home heating oil.

Texas ranked as the fourth cheapest state for energy, or No. 47 in the report that sorted by most expensive average monthly energy bill. Texans' average energy cost per month is $437, the report found.


Source: WalletHub

Here's how Texas ranked in key categories, with No. 1 being the most expensive and No. 50 being the cheapest:

  • No. 27 – price of electricity
  • No. 15 – price of natural gas
  • No. 44 – natural-gas consumption per consumer
  • No. 40 – price of motor fuel
  • No. 16 – motor-fuel consumption per driver
  • No. 49 – home heating-oil consumption per consumer

With the most expensive state — Wyoming — being over four times the cost compared to the cheapest state — New Mexico, the difference between energy costs between states varies greatly, but the reason for that isn't exactly a mystery.

“Energy prices vary from state to state based on several factors including energy sources, supply and demand, energy regulation, regulatory authorities, competition, and the free market," explains expert Justin Perryman, a professor at Washington University School of Law. "[States] such as Texas have a deregulated electricity marketplace. Missouri and 17 other states have a regulated energy market. In deregulated markets there are typically more energy providers which often leads to more competition and lower prices; however, other factors can contribute to energy prices.

"In regulated markets, the state energy regulatory authority sets the prices of energy," he continues. "It can be politically unpopular to raise energy costs, so those states may benefit from lower energy costs. Factors such as the state’s commitment to renewable energy may also factor into energy costs. Proximity to less expensive energy sources can lower energy costs.”

Texas's evolving energy landscape has been well documented, and earlier this year the state's solar energy generation surpassed the output by coal, according to a report from the Institute For Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

A separate report found that, when compared to other states, Texas will account for the biggest share of new utility-scale solar capacity and new battery storage capacity in 2024. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the state will make up 35 percent of new utility-scale solar capacity in the U.S. this year.

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-based ENGIE to add new wind and solar projects to Texas grid

coming soon

Houston-based ENGIE North America Inc. has expanded its partnership with Los Angeles-based Ares Infrastructure Opportunities to add 730 megawatts of renewable energy projects to the ERCOT grid.

The new projects will include one wind and two solar projects in Texas.

“The continued growth of our relationship with Ares reflects the strength of ENGIE’s portfolio of assets and our track record of delivering, operating and financing growth in the U.S. despite challenging circumstances,” Dave Carroll, CEO and Chief Renewables Officer of ENGIE North America, said in a news release. “The addition of another 730 MW of generation to our existing relationship reflects the commitment both ENGIE and Ares have to meeting growing demand for power in the U.S. and our willingness to invest in meeting those needs.”

ENGIE has more than 11 gigawatts of renewable energy projects in operation or under construction in the U.S. and Canada, and 52.7 gigawatts worldwide. The company is targeting 95 gigawatts by 2030.

ENGIE launched three new community solar farms in Illinois since December, including the 2.5-megawatt Harmony community solar farm in Lena and the Knox 2A and Knox 2B projects in Galesburg.

The company's 600-megawatt Swenson Ranch Solar project near Abilene, Texas, is expected to go online in 2027 and will provide power for Meta, the parent company of social media platform Facebook. Late last year, ENGIE also signed a nine-year renewable energy supply agreement with AstraZeneca to support the pharmaceutical company’s manufacturing operations from its 114-megawatt Tyson Nick Solar Project in Lamar County, Texas.

Houston geothermal company raises $97M Series B

fresh funding

Houston-based geothermal energy startup Sage Geosystems has closed its Series B fundraising round and plans to use the money to launch its first commercial next-generation geothermal power generation facility.

Ormat Technologies and Carbon Direct Capital co-led the $97 million round, according to a press release from Sage. Existing investors Exa, Nabors, alfa8, Arch Meredith, Abilene Partners, Cubit Capital and Ignis H2 Energy also participated, as well as new investors SiteGround Capital and The UC Berkeley Foundation’s Climate Solutions Fund.

The new geothermal power generation facility will be located at one of Ormat Technologies' existing power plants. The Nevada-based company has geothermal power projects in the U.S. and numerous other countries around the world. The facility will use Sage’s proprietary pressure geothermal technology, which extracts geothermal heat energy from hot dry rock, an abundant geothermal resource.

“Pressure geothermal is designed to be commercial, scalable and deployable almost anywhere,” Cindy Taff, CEO of Sage Geosystems, said in the news release. “This Series B allows us to prove that at commercial scale, reflecting strong conviction from partners who understand both the urgency of energy demand and the criticality of firm power.”

Sage reports that partnering with the Ormat facility will allow it to market and scale up its pressure geothermal technology at a faster rate.

“This investment builds on the strong foundation we’ve established through our commercial agreement and reinforces Ormat’s commitment to accelerating geothermal development,” Doron Blachar, CEO of Ormat Technologies, added in the release. “Sage’s technical expertise and innovative approach are well aligned with Ormat’s strategy to move faster from concept to commercialization. We’re pleased to take this natural next step in a partnership we believe strongly in.”

In 2024, Sage agreed to deliver up to 150 megawatts of new geothermal baseload power to Meta, the parent company of Facebook. At the time, the companies reported that the project's first phase would aim to be operating in 2027.

The company also raised a $17 million Series A, led by Chesapeake Energy Corp., in 2024.

Houston expert discusses the clean energy founder's paradox

Guest Column

Everyone tells you to move fast and break things. In clean energy, moving fast without structural integrity means breaking the only planet we’ve got. This is the founder's paradox: you are building a company in an industry where the stakes are existential, the timelines are glacial, and the capital requires patience.

The myth of the lone genius in a garage doesn’t really apply here. Clean energy startups aren’t just fighting competitors. They are fighting physics, policy, and decades of existing infrastructure. This isn’t an app. You’re building something physical that has to work in the real world. It has to be cheaper, more reliable, and clearly better than fossil fuels. Being “green” alone isn’t enough. Scale is what matters.

Your biggest risks aren’t competitors. They’re interconnection delays, permitting timelines, supply chain fragility, and whether your first customer is willing to underwrite something that hasn’t been done before.

That reality creates a brutal filter. Successful founders in this space need deep technical knowledge and the ability to execute. You need to understand engineering, navigate regulation, and think in terms of markets and risk. You’re not just selling a product. You’re selling a future where your solution becomes the obvious choice. That means connecting short-term financial returns with long-term system change.

The capital is there, but it’s smarter and more demanding. Investors today have PhDs in electrochemistry and grid dynamics. They’ve been burned by promises of miracle materials that never left the lab. They don't fund visions; they fund pathways to impact that can scale and make financial sense. Your roadmap must show not just a brilliant invention, but a clear, believable plan to drive costs down over time.

Capital in this sector isn’t impressed by ambition alone. It wants evidence that risk is being retired in the right order — even if that means slower growth early.

Here’s the upside. The difficulty of clean energy is also its strength. If you succeed, your advantage isn’t just in software or branding. It’s in hardware, supply chains, approvals, and years of hard work that others can’t easily copy. Your real competitors aren’t other startups. They’re inertia and the existing system. Winning here isn’t zero-sum. When one solution scales, it helps the entire market grow.

So, to the founder in the lab, or running field tests at a remote site: your pace will feel slow. The validation cycles are long. But you are building in the physical world. When you succeed, you don’t have an exit. You have a foundation. You don't just have customers; you have converts. And the product you ship doesn't just generate revenue; it creates a legacy.

If your timelines feel uncomfortable compared to software, that’s because you’re operating inside a system designed to resist change. And let’s not forget you are building actual physical products that interact with a complex world. Times are tough. Don’t give up. We need you.

---

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus.

View All Listings