Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 14 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Top Ten U.S. Cities Ranked by Use of Renewable Energy

Published: April 18, 2007

Peterborough, New Hampshire [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] A newly released study conducted by SustainLane Government concludes that Oakland, California, generates the highest percentage of renewable energy out of all U.S. cities, producing 5 percent more energy than any other city surveyed.

"Results in Oakland are built on the substantial foundation of renewable energy created by California's Renewable Portfolio Standard."

-- Scott Wentworth, City of Oakland, Energy Engineer
Leading the nation with 17 percent of its electricity produced by sources such as solar, wind and geothermal, most renewable energy generation in the city comes from commercial and residential photovoltaic (PV) systems.

According to City of Oakland Energy Engineer Scott Wentworth, the city is undertaking many important projects including: working with San Francisco State University, Marin County, and the City and County of San Francisco to create tools for assessing solar potential of commercial and residential properties; conducting wave and tidal power studies in collaboration with the Electric Power Research Institute and other California cities; and outfitting new municipal buildings to accommodate solar systems -- even if the resources are not available to install the system immediately.

Oakland has strongly supported solar energy and encouraged citizens to do the same, said Wentworth.

"We are excited that SustainLane Governments figures show that we are achieving positive results. The results that are happening in Oakland are derived from increasingly effective collaboration between government agencies, utilities, for-profit businesses and non-governmental organizations," he said.

Wentworth noted that Oakland works with other California cities like San Francisco and Marin to learn from one another and develop stronger renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. San Francisco, Sacramento and San Jose all tied for second place with 12 percent of their energy coming from renewable energy sources.

Percentage of Power from Renewable Energy

1

Oakland, CA

17%

2

Sacramento/San Francisco/San Jose, CA

12%

3

Portland, OR

10%

4

Boston, MA

8.6%

5

San Diego, CA

8%

6

Austin, TX

6%

7

Los Angeles, CA

5%

8

Minneapolis, MN

5%

9

Seattle, WA

3.5%

10

Chicago, Il

3%

Source: SustainLane U.S. City Rankings data 2006/2007



"The San Francisco Bay Area is one of several places in the nation where there is a very active and very constructive dialogue about renewable energy, backed up by a public and private will to invest in real projects," Wentworth added.

In 2004, SustainLane Government reports, more than one-third of greenhouse gases produced in the U.S. came from electricity production, making it a leading polluter in areas such as transportation (27.9 percent), industry (19.6 percent), and agriculture (7 percent).

The more renewable energy a city generates, the better equipped it will be for costly environmental regulations in the future. For example, if the greenhouse gases that cause climate change get taxed, cities with strong renewable energy programs could save a lot of money and their economies could gain a tax advantage. That puts Oakland and other top cities in a good position when such regulations arise.

Another economic benefit of implementing renewable energy technologies is the creation of regional jobs. As cities generate more power locally, many more direct and indirect jobs will spawn as a result. Domestic energy production also limits the importation of energy from other nations, reducing security risks.

Four of the top five cities in the report are located in California. California cities rank higher in general because of the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which set minimal requirements in 2002 for utility purchases of renewable energy for the state's electric grid. The RPS requires a 20 percent renewable energy total for the state's utilities by 2020.

"Results in Oakland are built on the substantial foundation of renewable energy created by California's Renewable Portfolio Standard," said Wentworth.

In addition to state portfolio standards, some U.S. cities have set goals for increasing renewable energy, ranging from Chicago's 20 percent goal by 2010, to Portland, Oregon's goal of obtaining 100 percent renewable energy by 2010.

Other cities, such as Austin, Texas, and Portland, Oregon have leading residential and business green choice programs as part of city-owned utility service offerings. As communities worry about the economic and environmental impacts of climate change, many cities and towns are implementing their own renewable energy programs instead of waiting for the federal government to act.
Additional Information
Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 14 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 14
April 18, 2007
Was Lincoln Nebraska even in the running? They have several wind turbines providing power to some degree there.

How do small towns that convert the entire fleet of vehicles to use Ethanol rank in this? It is always nice to see renewable energy used but if they take the relevant size of the town and averaged the percentage they would pant a different picture.
Check out Biotownusa.com for the state of Indiana funded efforts to make a town run on as much renewable energy as it can.
It will be hard for anyone to spot Reynolds, IN on a map and even harder to compete with big cities only being considered for these type of listings.
Reynolds Indiana's next step is to turn waste into energy and power the town with this energy as much as possible.

D~W
No image available
Comment
2 of 14
April 20, 2007
Here in Southern Illinois Area we have plan to take the challenge to out perform Chicago by 2010.
If this be the case for Arizona just recently received an call from an residents in that state they have an excellent rebate program with an State tax incentive plus with adding the Federal tax credit every person living in that should get on board with Solar .The State rebate application process is user friendly for an resident or business to participate .

My question is how effective is the State doing its part to educate thru the news media on the number of programs available within the State for the citizens and business to know where and how to get involved .
No image available
Comment
3 of 14
April 20, 2007
Draq,

It was the 50 largest cities that were compared.
No image available
Comment
4 of 14
April 20, 2007
Solly,

By the definition, energy from a source without end in the near future (over a century), then hydroelectric is renewable. However, it is not a progressive energy source. By progressive energy, I mean a source which is renewable, but which is also non-polluting, causes no harm (or very little harm) to the environment, and does more than be sustainable for a micro-location (a home or business) as to be sustainable for a macro-location.

An example of progressive energy is a home with solar panels are installed and which are generating more power than the amount consume by the home. If enough power is generated, a neighbor may not need grid power because of the selling of the excess from the progressive home. Together these homes can be called sustainable, but separate they can not.
No image available
Comment
5 of 14
April 20, 2007
That's the same problem with my state, Arizona (cowboy mentality). I've sent many letters to our very progressive Governor, but I think she has "more pressing" issues on her plate. For example, we just tested as the "dumbest" state in the union, and our schools were recently ranked 48th in the U.S. We're also the number 1 state for illegal immigrants, although almost all illegals are very hard-working people.

It's a shame that a state with 320 sunny days in the year hasn't harnessed solar power more than we have.
No image available
Comment
6 of 14
April 20, 2007
In response to Craig Benton's comment:

No, large-scale hydro does not qualify as renewable energy - only small scale micro-hydro projects qualify under that label. And rightly so, large-scale hydro projects can cause huge amounts of damage to the environment, causing devestation by flooding, and changing the natural course of waterways.

Congratulations to Californis for having the initiative and the dedication to pursue renewable energy policies, and encouraging its use - inspite of the US administration's huge lack of leadership on this issue. As a non-American, I can say that America get's a lot of criticism over its lack of attention to sustainabile energy policies, but people forget how much California is doing on its own initiative. Well done.
No image available
Comment
7 of 14
April 20, 2007
Doug Wraith, I appreciated your comments on Indiana but what they really need to do, if they are really serious, is to implement a renewable energy portfolio to give the utilities an incentive to really get involved. The same can be said for the neighbors in Ohio, Michigan, et.al. . 20 states are on board but the rest have to get serious if renewables are to have a real future.
No image available
Comment
8 of 14
April 20, 2007
Boston? In the top 5? Yeah, sure... right. That's about as likely as the Red sox winning the World Series.
Oh, er, ah... wait a minute... Oops. My bad.
No image available
Comment
9 of 14
April 20, 2007
Seattle should be on top of the list as almost all of its electricity comes from large hydro electric generating facilities. Doesn't hydro power qualify as renewable? I certainly think so. Plus, through agrressive conservation efforts, the City is consuming the same amount of electricity as it did in 1980 even though the City has grown significantly since then, proving that conservation can be a cost-effective alternative to adding new fossil fueled power plants.
No image available
Comment
10 of 14
April 21, 2007
Although hydro power does not fall into the above articles definition of topic the hydro power does not harm the environment. It makes it better. The Grand Coulee Dam electricity redirects the water to a desert. This desert produces the most winter wheat per acre in the entire United States. When I traveled across the U.S. into the midwest I thought the farmers had put half of their bales of hay in their barns. It was that noticeable. Again, Washington State is the only state in the Union that has a next export of goods. (Starbucks, Microsoft, Timber, Wheat, Boeing, and not in that order.) All of the other 49 have a net import. Concerning Seattle vs. Portland. Seattle's economy right now is sooooo concerned with transportation that other concerns will be left behind. Now if Seattle could harnes the rain from the sky we would have all of the other cities in the world beat and that would be if they all were combined.
No image available
Comment
11 of 14
April 22, 2007
Congrats. to the top 10 cities.!!!Please list the bottom 10 cities. Some "shame" should be inflicted on these laggards..
No image available
Comment
12 of 14
April 25, 2007
Solly,
I think you are confusing the dams on the Columbia river (Bonniville Power Adminstration)from where Seattle is getting its electricity. Seattle City Light, a publically owned utility, gets its hydro power from the Ross Dam which has created a beautiful lake in the Cascade mountains that is now a National Recreation Area. It in fact controls flooding while providing a steady flow of electricity to the City's electrical customer base. In fact, Seattle enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates in the country. The point here is that large hydro projects can be envrionmentally sustainable/friendly, it just depends on how they are designed and operated. And have you ever tasted the wonderful rainbow trout from Ross Lake? It is out of this world.
No image available
Comment
13 of 14
April 25, 2007
But these don't seem like insurmountable problems to me. And at least one challenge (the variability of the power output) is (or darn well should be) already being solved by the wind industry. At worst, the power from rain water could drive pump storage plants, i.e. drive electric pumps that move water to a higher elevation. This water is then later released to flow downhill, driving power turbines and thus generating power on-demand. Perhaps one could even cut out the intermediate step and route the rainwater to a nearby pumpstorage plant or use water pressure (rather than electric pumps)to elevate some of the water. This ought to lengthen the life of that plants pump equipment, lower its variable costs, improve efficiency and increase return on investment.
No image available
Comment
14 of 14
April 25, 2007
Keith,

you know, you might be on to something. All that rain in Seattle flows to the bay, doesn't it? It seems to me that that water could drive "microturbines" located underground. Certainly, this would be no small technical feat: the turbines would need to be very low-cost (to compensate for their lower utilisation factor compared to large-scale hydro power) and very low maintenance. In addition, even if separated from human sewage, the water might not be very clean (a challenge for maintenance). Finally the sewer system can not store water and generate power on demand; the grid would have to take whatever power is generated, when it's generated.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
 
Trina Solar Ltd. ABS Energy Research Clayton Power Solar Energy International (SEI) Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Algal Biomass Organization Canadian Solar Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters