15 Cities With Most Energy Efficient Buildings (PHOTOS)

A new study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has revealed America's most energy efficient cities based on buildings and several major cities made the cut.

The second annual EPA ratings were calculated based on how many commercial buildings in each city were designated "Energy Star Leaders."

Energy Star Leader buildings are structures that reduce energy use by 10 percent and perform "in the top 25 percent of similar buildings nationwide," the EPA said in a press release.

"These cities see the importance of taking action on climate change," said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, noting that they are reducing greenhouse gases and cutting energy bills.

The Top 15 cities on the list are shown below, along with the number of Energy Star buildings in each and the amount of money it's saved due to energy conservation. Rank each on whether or not it surprises you.

Loading Slideshow

• #15: DETROIT

  62 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $12.3 million in cost savings

• #14: SEATTLE

  69 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $15.4 million in cost savings

• #13: BOSTON

  74 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $40.3 million in cost savings

• #12: PORTLAND (ORE.)

  80 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $11.1 million in cost savings

• #11: MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL

  89 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $36.4 million in cost savings

• #10: NEW YORK

  90 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $88.3 million in cost savings

• #9: ATLANTA

  102 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $23.9 million in cost savings

• #8: DALLAS-FORT WORTH

  113 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $33.7 million in cost savings

• #7: LAKELAND (FLA.)

  120 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $8.3 million in cost savings

• #6: HOUSTON

  133 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $73.9 million in cost savings

• #5: CHICAGO

  134 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $50.2 million in cost savings

• #4: DENVER

  136 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $29.6 million in cost savings

• #3: SAN FRANCISCO

  173 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $69.4 million in cost savings

• #2: WASHINGTON, D.C.

  204 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $62.3 million in cost savings

• #1: LOS ANGELES

  293 Energy Star Buildings In 2009 and $93.9 million in cost savings

Comments

[winias]

07:48 AM on 03/29/2010

LA is also the most polluted city in the US next to Pittsburgh. Great for green buildings. They seem to be doing a lot.

[rougebaisers]

06:14 AM on 03/25/2010

Yay. We finally made the list for something good in Chicago.

[mikeoregon]

06:57 PM on 03/24/2010

The hidden assumption is that these energy efficient buildings use less energy than if they had been built to minimum energy code standards. I wonder if anyone is measuring their actual performance to see if that's the case.

[czark]

05:19 PM on 03/24/2010

Per-capita would make more sense.

[bluestems]

01:48 AM on 03/25/2010

I was thinking the same thing...

[cabgx2]

04:15 PM on 03/24/2010

I can well understand Washington, D.C. The city runs on self generated methane gas.

[freddiekrueger]

04:35 PM on 03/24/2010

alf is god

[MSaxe]

03:40 PM on 03/24/2010

Wait a minute...this is statistical gradoo.

Most should mean "highest percentage" not most "number of installations". You have to compare the number of green installations to the total use to get anywhere near the "most".

Nice try, no cigar.

[Myshkin57]

12:03 AM on 03/25/2010

You have the right idea but I actually think "largest amount of energy saved per person" would be most relevant. Look at Lakeland's high number of buildings and low amount of savings; they have a bunch of tiny energy star buildings.

[LB14]

03:33 PM on 03/24/2010

Dallas and Houston both in the top 10...I bet that surprises many on here

[ModerateProgressive]

04:11 PM on 03/24/2010

I'm an architect in Dallas. Doesn't surprise me at all. Dallas experienced a substantial building boom last decade - doubling the density of downtown. Most, if not all of those new buildings were LEED certified. In fact, the image shown of Dallas is about 6 years old. All that deserted space has transformed into state of the art - energy efficient buildings. Dallas also has one of the most progressive and visionary urban planning agendas in the country. How this city has developed in the past 10 years - from the arts district, to uptown and victory plaza, is truly remarkable.

[freddiekrueger]

04:37 PM on 03/24/2010

dallas is a major city. major cities often "get it"

[Gayrove]

03:23 PM on 03/24/2010

Which is the more energy efficient CITY, Minneapolis OR Saint Paul?
Which is the more energy efficient CITY, Dallas OR Fort Worth?

[cstmrsrvc]

02:43 PM on 03/24/2010

Boston, Chicago, LA, NY ,Detroit....... those energy star buildings sure do wonders for their economies and education systems, and budgets and unemployment problems

[JScott]

02:38 PM on 03/24/2010

Number of factors contribute to LA being the first.
Mild climate; the muni utility promotes it; lotsa construction has been going on the last few years in particular a lotta condos and conv. of industrial bldgs to lofts with the 'green' features added.
May be green but a lotta those bldgs. are standing almost or completely empty due to re recession, so utility use is either off or very low.

[sdried]

02:30 PM on 03/24/2010

The methodology for these estimates is completely screwed up! The city with the US's (world's?) most messed-up transportation system cannot be anywhere near the most energy efficient!!!

[xtiangodloki]

02:09 PM on 03/24/2010

One would think that cities in either hot or cold regions would have better insulation and therefore more energy savings.

[Maezeppa]

01:36 PM on 03/24/2010

Hurray for us, and I am also grateful for our "socialist" utilities. My electrical rates are a third of the same consumer in the beach city next door.

[jgzeger]

01:29 PM on 03/24/2010

What is the point of having "energy efficient" cities that are growing by leaps and bounds so that their overall energy use is increasing? Is that moving further ahead?

[Attikai]

01:21 PM on 03/24/2010

So the more commercial buildings a city has the more green it is? Fantastic criteria you have there.

[Craig Kanalley]

02:06 PM on 03/24/2010

Not just any buildings though -- Energy Star buildings.

[Attikai]

02:20 PM on 03/24/2010

So it would follow that the more coal plants a state has that are deemed "less polluting" than others the greener a state is. Or let's say I have a household that operates two hybrid vehicles while my neighbors have a household that just rides bikes and have ZERO hybrid cars. So I'm greener? I don't think so, buddy. ;)