The report, released last month, considered 28 relevant metrics—from air and water quality to the number of alternative fuel stations and green buildings per capita—to call out states doing the best (and worst) jobs of caring for the environment.
Texas came in at No. 42 out of 50, with a total score of 42.54 out of 100. Last year, the Lone Star State ranked No. 38 with a score of 50.40 based on 25 metrics.
Texas' poor ranking was driven by its last-placed ranking, coming in at No. 50, for overall environmental quality. It was tied for No. 45 for air quality and ranked No. 46 for water quality, which helped comprise the overall environmental quality score.
Other metrics fell closer toward the middle of the pack. The state ranked No. 32 for eco-friendly behaviors and No. 39 for climate-change contributions.
California also fell on the annual report. While the state claimed the top spot in 2024, it came in at No. 7 this year. Vermont, which came in second in 2024, was named the greenest state in 2025.
Hawaii, which didn't crack the top five last year, was ranked No. 2 on the 2025 report. New York, Maryland and Maine rounded out the top five this year.
West Virginia was the country's least green state again this year, followed by Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Mississippi.
The report also showed that Democrat-led states ranked around No. 12 on average, whereas Republican states fell at around No. 33.
While the WalletHub report seems bleak for Texas, others have shown more positive signs for the state. Texas was ranked slightly above average in a recent ranking of the best states for sustainable development. A recently released U.S. Energy Storage Monitor shows that Texas led all states and surpassed California in the fourth quarter of 2024 by installing 1.2 gigawatts of utility-scale energy storage for solar and wind power.
Still, WalletHub also recently ranked Houston No. 98 out of 100 of the largest cities on its Greenest Cities in America report. Read more here.
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.
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
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:
San Diego, California
Washington, D.C.
Honolulu, Hawaii
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Seattle, Washington
Oakland, California
Portland, Oregon
Fremont, California
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.
Texas's evolving energy landscape means affordability for residents, a new report finds. Photo via Pexels
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.
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.
It might only be Texas' grass that is green. Photo via Getty Images
Turns out — Texas might not be as green as you thought.
A new report from WalletHub looked at 25 key metrics — from green buildings per capita to energy consumption from renewable resources — to evaluate 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.
“It’s important for every American to do their part to support greener living and protect our environment. However, it’s much easier being green in some states than others," writes Cassandra Happe, a WalletHub Analyst, in the report. "For example, if a state doesn’t have a great infrastructure for alternative-fuel vehicles, it becomes much harder for residents to adopt that technology. Living in a green state is also very beneficial for the health of you and your family, as you benefit from better air, soil and water quality.”
Here's how Texas ranked among a few of the key metrics:
No. 35 for air quality
No. 38 for soil quality
No. 38 for water quality
No. 26 for LEED-certified buildings per capita
No. 32 for percent of renewable energy consumption
No. 45 for energy consumption per capita
No. 38 for gasoline consumption (in gallons) per capita
Despite Texas' solar energy generation surpassed the output by coal last month, according to a report from the Institute For Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the Lone Star State has room for improvement.
California was ranked as the greenest state, with Vermont, New York, Maryland, and Washington, respectively, rounding out the top five. The country's least green state is West Virginia, followed by Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky.
The report also zeroed in on how politics play into a state's climate system. Democrat-led states ranked around No. 15 on average, whereas Republican states fell at around No. 36.
The Lone Star State again failed to perform well on an annual ranking of the most energy efficient states.
Texas ranked as the 40th most energy efficient state, according to WalletHub's annual report. Only eight continental US states ranked poorer, including Oklahoma, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, and South Carolina, respectively.
The report looked at home and auto energy efficiency, as the report's methodology outlines.
"We obtained the former by calculating the ratio of total residential energy consumption to annual degree days. For the latter, 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," reads the study.
Texas scored a 36 out of 50 points for home energy efficiency and 41 points for auto energy efficiency.
The report's experts were asked about federal incentivization of energy efficiency for customers, and all were in agreement that this is key to the future of energy.
"Energy conservation is a big piece that needs to be tackled efficiently for us to make any progress on energy transition. Incentivizing consumers and businesses is necessary but only if there is a clear demonstration of changes in personal and business work/living habits that reduce the energy footprint," says Sanjay Srinivasan, director at EMS Energy Institute and professor at Pennsylvania State University.
Another recent report looked at Texas from the solar perspective, and Houston failed to place in the top 15 most "solar" cities in the United States. However, Austin led the way for Texas, ranking the No. 3 most “solar” city in the U.S., per Thumbtack. Austin, with the highest net-new solar panel installations within the past year in Texas, split up four Californian cities in the top five. Only San Diego (No. 1) and Los Angeles (No. 2) outranked Austin.
While there's room for improvement for efficiency, Texas has among the best prices for energy, as WalletHub found in a report this summer. Texas ranked No. 49 on the list of the 2023 Most Energy-Expensive States.
Greentown Labs announced the six startups to join its Houston community in Q2 of 2025.
The companies are among a group of 13 that joined the climatetech incubator, which is co-located in Houston and Boston, in the same time period. The companies that joined the Houston-based lab specialize in a number of clean energy applications, from long-duration energy storage systems to 3D solar towers.
The new Houston members include:
Encore CO2, a Louisiana-based company that converts CO2 into ethanol, acetate, ethylene and other sustainable chemicals through its innovative electrolysis technology
Janta Power, a Dallas-based company with proprietary 3D-solar-tower technology that deploys solar power vertically rather than flatly, increasing power and energy generation
Licube, an Austin-based company focused on sustainable lithium recovery from underutilized sources using its proprietary and patented electrodialysis technology
Newfound Materials, a Houston-based company that has developed a predictive engine for materials R&D
Pix Force, a Houston-based company that develops AI algorithms to inspect substations, transmission lines and photovoltaic plants using drones
Wattsto Energy, a Houston-based manufacturer of a long-duration-energy-storage system with a unique hybrid design that provides fast, safe, sustainable and cost-effective energy storage at the microgrid and grid levels
Seven other companies will join Greentown Boston's incubator. See the full list here.
Greentown Houston also added five startups to its local lab in Q1. Read more about the companies here.
There’s a reason “carbon footprint” became a buzzword. It sounds like something we should know. Something we should measure. Something that should be printed next to the calorie count on a label.
But unlike calories, a carbon footprint isn’t universal, standardized, or easy to calculate. In fact, for most companies—especially in energy and heavy industry—it’s still a black box.
That’s the problem Planckton Data is solving.
On this episode of the Energy Tech Startups Podcast, Planckton Data co-founders Robin Goswami and Sandeep Roy sit down to explain how they’re turning complex, inconsistent, and often incomplete emissions data into usable insight. Not for PR. Not for green washing. For real operational and regulatory decisions.
And they’re doing it in a way that turns sustainability from a compliance burden into a competitive advantage.
From calories to carbon: The label analogy that actually works
If you’ve ever picked up two snack bars and compared their calorie counts, you’ve made a decision based on transparency. Robin and Sandeep want that same kind of clarity for industrial products.
Whether it’s a shampoo bottle, a plastic feedstock, or a specialty chemical—there’s now consumer and regulatory pressure to know exactly how sustainable a product is. And to report it.
But that’s where the simplicity ends.
Because unlike food labels, carbon labels can’t be standardized across a single factory. They depend on where and how a product was made, what inputs were used, how far it traveled, and what method was used to calculate the data.
Even two otherwise identical chemicals—one sourced from a refinery in Texas and the other in Europe—can carry very different carbon footprints, depending on logistics, local emission factors, and energy sources.
Planckton’s solution is built to handle exactly this level of complexity.
AI that doesn’t just analyze
For most companies, supply chain emissions data is scattered, outdated, and full of gaps.
That’s where Planckton’s use of AI becomes transformative.
It standardizes data from multiple suppliers, geographies, and formats.
It uses probabilistic models to fill in the blanks when suppliers don’t provide details.
It applies industry-specific product category rules (PCRs) and aligns them with evolving global frameworks like ISO standards and GHG Protocol.
It helps companies model decarbonization pathways, not just calculate baselines.
This isn’t generative AI for show. It’s applied machine learning with a purpose: helping large industrial players move from reporting to real action.
And it’s not a side tool. For many of Planckton’s clients, it’s becoming the foundation of their sustainability strategy.
From boardrooms to smokestacks: Where the pressure is coming from
Planckton isn’t just chasing early adopters. They’re helping midstream and upstream industrial suppliers respond to pressure coming from two directions:
Downstream consumer brands—especially in cosmetics, retail, and CPG—are demanding footprint data from every input supplier.
Upstream regulations—especially in Europe—are introducing reporting requirements, carbon taxes, and supply chain disclosure laws.
The team gave a real-world example: a shampoo brand wants to differentiate based on lower emissions. That pressure flows up the value chain to the chemical suppliers. Who, in turn, must track data back to their own suppliers.
It’s a game of carbon traceability—and Planckton helps make it possible.
Why Planckton focused on chemicals first
With backgrounds at Infosys and McKinsey, Robin and Sandeep know how to navigate large-scale digital transformations. They also know that industry specificity matters—especially in sustainability.
So they chose to focus first on the chemicals sector—a space where:
Supply chains are complex and often opaque.
Product formulations are sensitive.
And pressure from cosmetics, packaging, and consumer brands is pushing for measurable, auditable impact data.
It’s a wedge into other verticals like energy, plastics, fertilizers, and industrial manufacturing—but one that’s already showing results.
Carbon accounting needs a financial system
What makes this conversation unique isn’t just the product. It’s the co-founders’ view of the ecosystem.
They see a world where sustainability reporting becomes as robust as financial reporting. Where every company knows its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions the way it knows revenue, gross margin, and EBITDA.
But that world doesn’t exist yet. The data infrastructure isn’t there. The standards are still in flux. And the tooling—until recently—was clunky, manual, and impossible to scale.
Planckton is building that infrastructure—starting with the industries that need it most.
Houston as a launchpad (not just a legacy hub)
Though Planckton has global ambitions, its roots in Houston matter.
The city’s legacy in energy and chemicals gives it a unique edge in understanding real-world industrial challenges. And the growing ecosystem around energy transition—investors, incubators, and founders—is helping companies like Planckton move fast.
“We thought we’d have to move to San Francisco,” Robin shares. “But the resources we needed were already here—just waiting to be activated.”
The future of sustainability is measurable—and monetizable
The takeaway from this episode is clear: measuring your carbon footprint isn’t just good PR—it’s increasingly tied to market access, regulatory approval, and bottom-line efficiency.
And the companies that embrace this shift now—using platforms like Planckton—won’t just stay compliant. They’ll gain a competitive edge.
Listen to the full conversation with Planckton Data on the Energy Tech Startups Podcast:
Hosted by Jason Ethier and Nada Ahmed, the Digital Wildcatters’ podcast, Energy Tech Startups, delves into Houston's pivotal role in the energy transition, spotlighting entrepreneurs and industry leaders shaping a low-carbon future.
Houston climatech company Gold H2 completed its first field trial that demonstrates subsurface bio-stimulated hydrogen production, which leverages microbiology and existing infrastructure to produce clean hydrogen.
“When we compare our tech to the rest of the stack, I think we blow the competition out of the water," Prabhdeep Singh Sekhon, CEO of Gold H2 Sekhon previously told Energy Capital.
The project represented the first-of-its-kind application of Gold H2’s proprietary biotechnology, which generates hydrogen from depleted oil reservoirs, eliminating the need for new drilling, electrolysis or energy-intensive surface facilities. The Woodlands-based ChampionX LLC served as the oilfield services provider, and the trial was conducted in an oilfield in California’s San Joaquin Basin.
According to the company, Gold H2’s technology could yield up to 250 billion kilograms of low-carbon hydrogen, which is estimated to provide enough clean power to Los Angeles for over 50 years and avoid roughly 1 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent.
“This field trial is tangible proof. We’ve taken a climate liability and turned it into a scalable, low-cost hydrogen solution,” Sekhon said in a news release. “It’s a new blueprint for decarbonization, built for speed, affordability, and global impact.”
Highlights of the trial include:
First-ever demonstration of biologically stimulated hydrogen generation at commercial field scale with unprecedented results of 40 percent H2 in the gas stream.
Demonstrated how end-of-life oilfield liabilities can be repurposed into hydrogen-producing assets.
The trial achieved 400,000 ppm of hydrogen in produced gases, which, according to the company,y is an “unprecedented concentration for a huff-and-puff style operation and a strong indicator of just how robust the process can perform under real-world conditions.”
The field trial marked readiness for commercial deployment with targeted hydrogen production costs below $0.50/kg.
“This breakthrough isn’t just a step forward, it’s a leap toward climate impact at scale,” Jillian Evanko, CEO and president at Chart Industries Inc., Gold H2 investor and advisor, added in the release. “By turning depleted oil fields into clean hydrogen generators, Gold H2 has provided a roadmap to produce low-cost, low-carbon energy using the very infrastructure that powered the last century. This changes the game for how the world can decarbonize heavy industry, power grids, and economies, faster and more affordably than we ever thought possible.”
