Texas ranked in the bottom half on WalletHub's list of the most energy-efficient states. Photo via unsplash.

Texas has room to improve when it comes to energy efficiency, recent data from WalletHub shows.

The personal finance website ranked Texas at No. 35 on the latest Most & Least Energy-Efficient States list. Texas improved by one spot on the 2025 report, after coming in at No. 36 last year.

The report measured and ranked the efficiency of auto energy and home energy consumption in the 48 U.S. mainland states based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration.

Texas earned an overall score of 50.60. It was ranked No. 27 for home energy efficiency and No. 41 for auto efficiency. By comparison, No. 1-ranked Vermont earned a score of 85.30, ranking No. 2 for home energy and No. 6 for out energy.

The top five overall states included:

  • No. 1 Vermont
  • No. 2 California
  • No. 3 Washington
  • No. 4 New York
  • No. 5 Massachusetts

South Dakota earned the top rank for home energy efficiency, and Massachusetts earned the top rank for energy efficiency.

“Energy efficiency doesn’t just help save the planet – it also helps save you money by lowering the amount of electricity, gas, oil or other types of energy you need to consume. While there are some steps you can take to become more energy-efficient on your own, living in the right area can give you a big boost," WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report. "For example, certain states have much better public transportation systems that minimize your need to drive, at least in big cities. Some places also have better-constructed buildings that retain heat better during the winter or stay cooler during the summer.”

According to the report, some progress is being made in increasing energy efficiency across the country. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects 26 percent of electricity generation in 2026 will come from renewables. A number of them are being developed in the Houston area, including recent announcements like the Pleasure Island Power Collective in Port Arthur.

Still, Houston earned an abysmal ranking on WalletHub's greenest cities in the U.S. report earlier this year, coming in at No. 99 out of 100. Read more here.

Houston had two big strikes against it on WalletHub's Greenest Cities in America report. Photo via Getty Images.

Houston ranks No. 99 out of 100 on new report of greenest U.S. cities

Sustainability Slide

Houstonians may be feeling blue about a new ranking of the greenest cities in the U.S.

Among the country’s 100 largest cities based on population, Houston ranks 99th across 28 key indicators of “green” living in a new study from personal finance website WalletHub. The only city with a lower ranking is Glendale, Arizona. Last year, Houston landed at No. 98 on the WalletHub list.

“‘Green’ living means a choice to engage in cleaner, more sustainable habits in order to preserve the planet as much as possible,” WalletHub says.

Among the study’s ranking factors are the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, the number of “smart energy” policies, and the presence of “green job” programs.

In the study, Houston received an overall score of 35.64 out of 100. WalletHub put its findings into four buckets, with Houston ranked 100th in the environment and transportation categories, 56th in the lifestyle and policy category, and 52nd in the energy sources category.

In the environment category, Houston has two big strikes against it. The metro area ranks among the 10 worst places for ozone pollution (No. 7) and year-round particle pollution (No. 8), according to the American Lung Association’s 2025 list of the most polluted cities.

In the WalletHub study, San Jose, California, earns the honor of being the country’s greenest city. It’s followed by Washington, D.C.; Oakland, California; Irvine, California; and San Francisco.

“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,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report. “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. The greenest cities also are better for your health due to superior air and water quality.”

Texas fell four spots on WalletHub's annual Greenest States report. Photo via Pexels

Texas falls lower on national ranking of greenest states for 2025

room to improve

Texas dropped in the rankings on WalletHub's Greenest States 2025 report.

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.

Source: WalletHub
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.

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.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

ERCOT to capture big share of U.S. solar power growth through 2027

solar growth

Much of the country’s growth in utility-scale solar power generation will happen in the grid operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), according to a new forecast.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that solar power supplied to the ERCOT grid will jump from 56 billion kilowatt-hours in 2025 to 106 billion kilowatt-hours by the end of 2027. That would be an increase of 89 percent.

In tandem with the rapid embrace of solar power, EIA anticipates battery storage capacity for ERCOT will expand from 15 gigawatts in 2025 to 37 gigawatts by the end of 2027, or 147 percent.

EIA expects utility-scale solar to be the country’s fastest-growing source of power generation from 2025 to 2027. It anticipates that this source will climb from 290 billion kilowatt-hours last year to 424 billion kilowatt-hours next year, or 46 percent.

Based on EIA’s projections, ERCOT’s territory would account for one-fourth of the country’s utility-scale solar power generation by the end of next year.

“Solar power and energy storage are the fastest-growing grid technologies in Texas, and can be deployed more quickly than any other generation resource,” according to the Texas Solar + Storage Association. “In the wholesale market, solar and storage are increasing grid reliability, delivering consumer affordability, and driving tax revenue and income streams into rural Texas.”

Expert: Why Texas must make energy transmission a top priority in 2026

guest column

Texas takes pride in running one of the most dynamic and deregulated energy markets in the world, but conversations about electricity rarely focus on what keeps it moving: transmission infrastructure.

As ERCOT projects unprecedented electricity demand growth and grid operators update their forecasts for 2026, it’s becoming increasingly clear that generation, whether renewable or fossil, is only part of the solution. Transmission buildout and sound governing policy now stand as the linchpin for reliability, cost containment, and long-term resilience in a grid under unprecedented stress.

At the heart of this urgency is one simple thing: demand. Over 2024 and 2025, ERCOT has been breaking records at a pace we haven’t seen before. From January through September of 2025 alone, electricity use jumped more than 5% over the year before, the fastest growth of any major U.S. grid. And it’s not slowing down.

The Energy Information Administration expects demand to climb another 14% in 2026, pushing total consumption to roughly 425 terawatt-hours in just the first nine months. That surge isn’t just about more people moving to Texas or running their homes differently; it’s being driven by massive industrial and technology loads that simply weren’t part of the equation ten years ago.

The most dramatic contributor to that rising demand is large-scale infrastructure such as data centers, cloud computing campuses, crypto mining facilities, and electrified industrial sectors. In the latest ERCOT planning update, more than 233 gigawatts of total “large load” interconnection requests were being tracked, an almost 300% jump over just a year earlier, with more than 70% of those requests tied to data centers.

Imagine hundreds of new power plants requesting to connect to the grid, all demanding uninterrupted power 24/7. That’s the scale of the transition Texas is facing, and it’s one of the major reasons transmission planning is no longer back-of-house policy talk but a central grid imperative.

Yet transmission is complicated, costly, and inherently long-lead. It takes three to six years to build new transmission infrastructure, compared with six to twelve months to add a new load or generation project.

This is where Texas will feel the most tension. Current infrastructure can add customers and power plants quickly, but the lines to connect them reliably take time, money, permitting, and political will.

To address these impending needs, ERCOT wrapped up its 2024 Regional Transmission Plan (RTP) at the end of last year, and the message was pretty clear: we’ve got work to do. The plan calls for 274 transmission projects and about 6,000 miles of new, rebuilt, or upgraded lines just to handle the growth coming our way and keep the lights on.

The plan also suggests upgrading to 765-kilovolt transmission lines, a big step beyond the standard 345-kV system. When you start talking about 765-kilovolt transmission lines, that’s a big leap from what Texas normally uses. Those lines are built to move a massive amount of power over long distances, but they’re expensive and complicated, so they’re only considered when planners expect demand to grow far beyond normal levels. Recommending them is a clear signal that incremental upgrades won’t be enough to keep up with where electricity demand is headed.

There’s a reason transmission is suddenly getting so much attention. ERCOT and just about every industry analyst watching Texas are projecting that electricity demand could climb as high as 218 gigawatts by 2031 if even a portion of the massive queue of large-load projects actually comes online. When you focus only on what’s likely to get built, the takeaway is the same: demand is going to stay well above anything we’ve seen before, driven largely by the steady expansion of data centers, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure across the state.

Ultimately, the decisions Texas makes on transmission investment and the policies that determine how those costs are allocated will shape whether 2026 and the years ahead bring greater stability or continued volatility to the grid. Thoughtful planning can support growth while protecting reliability and affordability, but falling short risks making volatility a lasting feature of Texas’s energy landscape.

Transmission Policy: The Other Half of the Equation

Infrastructure investment delivers results only when paired with policies that allow it to operate efficiently and at scale. Recognizing that markets alone won’t solve these challenges, Texas lawmakers and regulators have started creating guardrails.

For example, Senate Bill 6, now part of state law, aims to improve how large energy consumers are managed on the grid, including new rules for data center operations during emergencies and requirements around interconnection. Data centers may even be required to disconnect under extreme conditions to protect overall system reliability, a novel and necessary rule given their scale.

Similarly, House Bill 5066 changed how load forecasting occurs by requiring ERCOT to include utility-reported projections in its planning processes, ensuring transmission planning incorporates real-world expectations. These policy updates matter because grid planning isn’t just a technical checklist. It’s about making sure investment incentives, permitting decisions, and cost-sharing rules are aligned so Texas can grow its economy without putting unnecessary pressure on consumers.

Without thoughtful policy, we risk repeating past grid management mistakes. For example, if transmission projects are delayed or underfunded while new high-demand loads come online, we could see congestion worsen. If that happens, affordable electricity would be located farther from where it’s needed, limiting access to low-cost power for consumers and slowing overall economic growth. That’s especially critical in regions like Houston, where energy costs are already a hot topic for households and businesses alike.

A 2026 View: Strategy Over Shortage

As we look toward 2026, here are the transmission and policy trends that matter most:

  • Pipeline of Projects Must Stay on Track: ERCOT’s RTP is ambitious, and keeping those 274 projects, thousands of circuit miles, and next-generation 765-kV lines moving is crucial for reliability and cost containment.
  • Large Load Forecasting Must Be Nuanced: The explosion in large-load interconnection requests, whether or not every project materializes, signals demand pressure that transmission planners cannot ignore. Building lines ahead of realized demand is not wasteful planning; it’s insurance against cost and reliability breakdowns.
  • Policy Frameworks Must Evolve: Laws like SB 6 and HB 5066 are just the beginning. Texas needs transparent rules for cost allocation, interconnection standards, and emergency protocols that keep consumers protected while supporting innovation and economic growth.
  • Coordination Among Stakeholders Is Critical: Transmission doesn’t stop at one utility’s borders. Regional cooperation among utilities, ERCOT, and local stakeholders is essential to manage congestion and develop systemwide reliability solutions.

Here’s the bottom line: Generation gets the headlines, but transmission makes the grid work. Without a robust transmission buildout and thoughtful governance, even the most advanced generation mix that includes wind, solar, gas, and storage will struggle to deliver the reliability Texans expect at a price they can afford.

In 2026, Texas is not merely testing its grid’s capacity to produce power; it’s testing its ability to move that power where it’s needed most. How we rise to meet that challenge will define the next decade of energy in the Lone Star State.

———

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.