| Oregon |
6.15 |
21 |
11.0 percent below |
| South Dakota |
7.81 |
38 |
13.0 percent above |
| Washington |
4.84 |
1 |
30.0 percent below |
| New Hampshire |
13.12 |
44 |
89.9 percent above |
| Idaho |
5.66 |
10 |
18.1 percent below |
| Nevada |
5.39 |
6 |
22.0 percent below |
| New York |
6.06 |
19 |
12.3 percent below |
| Oklahoma |
5.16 |
4 |
25.3 percent below |
| Vermont |
10.31 |
43 |
49.2 percent above |
| Connecticut |
13.68 |
45 |
98.0 Percent above |
What goes into ranking the best state for green energy? Is it the state that generates the most electricity from green sources – solar, wind, and hydroelectric? What if that state also uses the most the most coal for electricity generation? What if it actually generates the most carbon emissions?
it’s difficult to declare it the best green energy state when it also generates the most carbon dioxide. But a deeper look shows that it’s difficult to declare Texas as the worst green energy state, either.
</Because biggest isn’t always best – and neither is smallest – ChooseEnergy.com® analysts developed a better way of evaluating states’ renewable ranking. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we calculated a state’s percentage of power from green sources, its percentage of electricity generated by burning coal, and its carbon dioxide emissions per electricity generated (1,000 megawatts); these numbers paint a different picture of which states are dirty and which are clean. (Methodology for the Green Index is explained below.) As for Texas, it came in as the 36th greenest state once all factors were considered.
The 10 greenest states of 2018
What’s the best state for green energy – and why?
Measuring by the ChooseEnergy.com® Green Index, Oregon is the nation’s greenest state. Oregon gets 57.4 percent of its electricity from solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal power sources, one of only six states to use all four renewables in energy generation.
Moreover, Oregon generated the least carbon dioxide per electricity generated, according to the EIA’s latest stats. The state produces only 2.5 percent of its power from coal, which put it in the top third of states in that category.
Following are the 10 greenest states of 2018 and their ChooseEnergy.com Green Index score:
![Chart]()
| 1. Oregon |
94.7 |
Produces the least carbon per electricity generated |
| 2. South Dakota |
93.0 |
87.4 percent of its electricity comes from green sources |
| 3. Washington |
92.7 |
Use of coal to produce 11% electricity suppresses score |
| 4. New Hampshire |
91.0 |
Third-lowest in carbon per electricity generated |
| 5. Idaho |
90.7 |
More than half its electricity comes from hydroelectric |
| 6. Nevada |
89.3 |
Doesn’t top any measurement but performs well in all |
| 7. New York |
87.7 |
Gets less than half a percent of its electricity from coal |
| 8. Oklahoma |
84.3 |
Produces more than a third of its electricity from wind |
| 9. Vermont |
83.7 |
Second in percentage of electricity from green sources |
| 10. Connecticut |
82.3 |
Doesn’t get any of its electricity from burning coal |
What about the cost of renewable energy?
Common perception suggests that green electricity production costs more than energy produced from “conventional” sources, such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum.
Here’s how the top 10 green states rank for residential electricity rates, according to the latest electricity rates by state information:
![Chart]()
| Oregon |
11.24 |
15 |
12.7 percent below |
| South Dakota |
12. 35 |
24 |
4.0 percent below |
| Washington |
9.68 |
3 |
24.8 percent below |
| New Hampshire |
20.23 |
45 |
57.2 percent above |
| Idaho |
10.33 |
5 |
19.7 percent below |
| Nevada |
12.16 |
22 |
5.5 percent below |
| New York |
19.29 |
44 |
49.9 percent above |
| Oklahoma |
11.00 |
11 |
14.5 percent below |
| Vermont |
18.42 |
43 |
43.1 percent above |
| Connecticut |
21.87 |
48 |
69.9 Percent above |
Here’s how the top 10 states stack up for industrial electricity:
![Chart]()
| Oregon |
6.15 |
21 |
11.0 percent below |
| South Dakota |
7.81 |
38 |
13.0 percent above |
| Washington |
4.84 |
1 |
30.0 percent below |
| New Hampshire |
13.12 |
44 |
89.9 percent above |
| Idaho |
5.66 |
10 |
18.1 percent below |
| Nevada |
5.39 |
6 |
22.0 percent below |
| New York |
6.06 |
19 |
12.3 percent below |
| Oklahoma |
5.16 |
4 |
25.3 percent below |
| Vermont |
10.31 |
43 |
49.2 percent above |
| Connecticut |
13.68 |
45 |
98.0 Percent above |
The above tables show that three of the 10 greenest states had residential electricity rates that were among the country’s 11 lowest; four were among states with the 10 highest rates. On the industrial side, four of the 10 greenest states were among the 10 lowest industrial rates, while three had rates among the 10 highest.
Bottom line: The perceived connection between green efforts and higher electricity costs is questionable.
John Boyd, a principal with The Boyd Company, a Princeton, New Jersey-based company that provides management counsel to U.S. and international corporations including Boeing, Chevron, JP Morgan Chase and others, counts the availability of green energy as a leading factor, especially for companies with industrial and data-center projects.
“Perhaps the greatest example is central Washington state – where low-cost and green-friendly hydroelectric power (2 cents/kWh vs. 19 cents in locations in California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island or Connecticut, for example) are a major reason why that region has the largest concentration of data centers in North America,” he says, noting that Yahoo, Microsoft, Sabey, and Intuit all have major data centers there. Other states leverage different green assets. “Wind power is a major data center recruitment tool for Iowa – which has major Google and Facebook data centers,” Boyd says. (Iowa finished at No. 22 among the greenest states – even though it generates the second-highest percentage of its electricity from wind.)
Boyd says price isn’t the only factor when considering green energy. “For Facebook, Google and Apple – using green friendly power is not only good for the ‘brand’ but helps build goodwill among the public and among lawmakers, which is important to tech giants subject to oversight on antitrust issues and other regulatory oversight. It also makes incentives – highly contentious today – an easier sell to weary citizens and lawmakers when the company can talk about using green energy.”
Riley Adams, a CPA and senior financial analyst for a Fortune 500 company in New Orleans, agrees that green power is a major factor in company relocations. “I can say firsthand that large, industrial customers do make availability of green energy alternatives a consideration when deciding where to locate their facilities. In fact, many companies prioritize access to green alternatives as a top item for their location decision.”
Adams says companies believe they can save in the long run by switching to green power. “As the costs of renewables have come down tremendously, companies have found long-term power purchase agreements to be cost-effective ways to reduce their environmental footprint. Depending on resource and location, these companies actually can save money over the length of the power purchase agreement compared to contracting for traditional generation with the incumbent utility.
“Not every company considers this, but it is a major point of consideration for many companies today, especially as costs have become competitive with traditional utility generation resources,” Adams says.
