Ellington CMS...2014/07/16 · © 2014 Clean Edge, Inc. (). This report, and the models and analysis contained herein, are the property of Clean Edge and may not

https://twitter.com/home?status=How%20do%20your%20state%20and%20city%20rank%20on%20clean%20tech?%20Check%20the%202014%20Clean%20Tech%20Leadership%20Index,%20out%20now:%20http://bit.ly/1q64P7W%20@CleanEdgeInchttps://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://cleanedge.com/indexes/u.s.-clean-tech-leadership-index&title=Clean%20Tech%20Leadership%20Index&summary=How%20do%20your%20city%20and%20state%20rank%20in%20clean-tech%20activity?%20Check%20the%20newly-released%202014%20U.S.%20Clean%20Tech%20Leadership%20Index.&source=Clean%20Edge,%20Inchttps://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://cleanedge.com/indexes/u.s.-clean-tech-leadership-index

© 2014 Clean Edge, Inc. (www.cleanedge.com). This report, and the models and analysis contained herein, are the property of Clean Edge and may not be reproduced, published, or summarized for distribution or incorporation into a report or other document without prior approval.

CLEAN ENERGYFINANCE AND INVESTMENT AUTHORITY

Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) is a diversified, community-based financial

services company providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and

consumer and commercial finance. A leader in reducing its own greenhouse gas

emissions and building sustainably, Wells Fargo serves one in three households in

the United States and has been widely recognized for sustainability leadership in the

communities it serves. Since 2005, Wells Fargo has provided more than $28 billion

in environmental finance, supporting sustainable buildings and renewable energy

projects nationwide. This includes investments in more than 300 solar projects and

47 wind projects that generate enough clean renewable energy to power hundreds

of thousands of American homes each year. Wells Fargo is proud to support the

2014 Clean Tech Leadership Index and those working to develop America’s clean

technology infrastructure. http://blogs.wellsfargo.com/environment/

Founded in 1991, the Energy Foundation is a partnership of philanthropic investors

committed to building a new energy future. A thriving clean energy industry will

provide good jobs in viable industries, strengthen national security, and keep our air

and water clean and healthy – for today’s children and future generations. Work-

ing in the U.S. and China, we seek to build markets for clean energy technologies

in the transportation, buildings, and power sectors, and to grow national and

state support for clean energy and strong climate policies. The Energy Foundation

is pragmatic and nonpartisan, dedicated to finding practical solutions that work

in the real world. Our primary role is as a grantmaker, providing resources to the

institutions that most effectively leverage change. Our offices are in San Francisco,

CA; Chicago, IL; Raleigh, N.C.; and Beijing, China. www.ef.org

http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/www.ef.orghttps://www.wellsfargo.com/about/csr/ea/?mplx=6878-51580-3408-24http://www.pdc.us/welcome.aspxhttp://www.masscec.com/http://www.sparkpr.comhttps://www.nycedc.com/?utm_source=Clean%20Edge%20Index&utm_medium=Index%20Print%20Ad&utm_campaign=CleanTech-Clean%20Edge%20Index%20JUL%202014


04 Product Description 05 The U.S. Clean Tech Market

08 State Index Map & Ranking List 09 2014 State Index Results

28 Metro Index Map & Ranking List 29 2014 U.S. Metro Index Results

43 Metro Index Methodology

11 Technology Map & Ranking List 12 Technology Overview

31 Green Buildings Map & Ranking List 32 Green Buildings Overview

45 Data Sources 49 Subscription Info / About Clean Edge

16 Policy Map & Ranking List 17 Policy Overview 19 Policy Checklist

34 Advanced Transportation Map & Ranking List 35 Advanced Transportation Overview

20 Capital Map & Ranking List 21 Capital Overview

37 Clean Electricity & Carbon Management Map & Ranking List 38 Clean Electricity & Carbon Management Overview

24 State Index Methodology

40 Clean-Tech Investment, Innovation & Workforce Map & Ranking List 41 Clean-Tech Investment, Innovation & Workforce Overview


This report contains findings from the 2014

editions of Clean Edge’s State and Metro Indexes, which track activity in the U.S.

based on a diverse set of underlying industry indicators at state and metro levels.

Indicator performances are grouped into separate categories (for index weighting

purposes) and ultimately used to calculate regional leadership scores. The

offers scores for all 50 states, derived from more than 70 state-based indica-

tors. The uses 20 metro-based indicators to calculate scores for the 50

largest U.S. metropolitan statistical areas. Organizational structures of both indexes

are shown at the right, and more information can be found later in the report (State

Index methodology on page 24; Metro Index methodology on page 43).

The objective of the Leadership Index is to serve as a tool for regional comparative

research, a source for aggregated industry data, and a jumping-off point for deep,

data-driven analysis of the U.S. clean-energy market. This is the fifth edition of the

State Index, the third annual Metro Index, and the second year that topline index

rankings and scores have been released as a public report.


For the most part, the clean-tech industry and its allies have successfully fought

off efforts by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and

other groups to repeal RPS mandates in at least a dozen states. But in June of this

year, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed into law SB 310, which freezes Ohio’s

RPS mandate (25 percent renewables by 2025) for two years for further study,

which depending on the political winds in that state could lead to its reduction or

outright repeal. SB 310 is a worrisome sign of the political times, as the original

RPS was passed by Ohio’s legislature in 2008 with nearly unanimous bipartisan

Over the past year, states and cities continued to be where most of the clean-

tech action is in the United States. Supportive policies and aggressive technology

deployments from Connecticut to California have made clean-energy generation,

in particular residential and commercial solar PV, increasingly a popular energy

choice for mainstream America. Eleven states generated more than 10 percent

of their electricity from clean-energy sources (not including hydro) in 2013, with

two, Iowa and South Dakota, exceeding 25 percent. At least eight states now have

more than 50 percent smart-meter market penetration, with California topping 70

percent. Sales of all-electric vehicles, led by the Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt, more

than tripled in 2013 to nearly 50,000. And 14 states – among them Georgia, North

Carolina, and Pennsylvania – are each now home to more than 500 LEED-certified

green building projects.

On the policy front, leading states and metro areas continue to make clean-energy

expansion a priority. Net-zero or near-zero energy mandates for buildings, green

banks and other effective financing mechanisms, and the nation’s first energy-

storage mandate in California are just a few policies implemented in the last 12

months that will drive the clean-tech growth tracked by this Index.

But clean tech has unquestionably turned political, with partisan attacks by certain

lobbyists, legislators, and utilities in several states resulting in minor setbacks (for now)

of clean tech-friendly policies like net metering and renewable portfolio standards.

93.7

79.4

67.0

66.8

64.8

61.9

61.6

61.5

58.6

57.3

Source: Clean Edge, Inc.

94.4

79.7

66.3

62.9

61.0

56.2

56.0

53.6

51.3

49.7

Source: Clean Edge, Inc.


support. In Arizona and elsewhere, utility regulators have imposed fees on ratepay-

ers who install grid-connected solar PV arrays, but generally much lower tariffs

than had been sought by investor-owned utilities. So far, such actions have not

slowed the unprecedented expansion of solar PV deployment in the U.S., which

grew 41 percent in 2013 to 4.75 gigawatts.

From a federal government perspective, partisan gridlock has continued to rule on

Capitol Hill, where even the broadly supported Shaheen-Portman bill on energy

efficiency failed to reach a floor vote in the Senate. Congress also failed to pass

tax-credit extensions for the wind and solar power industries.

In June 2014, however, President Obama took perhaps the boldest step of his

administration to advance clean energy, announcing new Environmental Protec-

tion Agency regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from 2005

levels by 2030. The new rules will face political and legal challenges, but could

dramatically accelerate the ongoing shift from coal-fired power generation to a

future of renewables, energy efficiency, and natural gas. Notably, and perhaps not

surprisingly, implementation of the carbon rules would be left up to the states –

providing regional players a significant role in setting policies and programs and

making the tracking of state and metro progress all the more critical.

mailto:yonker%40cleanedge.com?subject=


CaliforniaMassachusettsOregonColoradoNew YorkNew MexicoWashingtonIllinoisVermontConnecticutNew JerseyHawaiiRhode IslandMichiganMinnesotaNew HampshireNevadaTexasWisconsinMarylandDelawareArizonaIowaNorth CarolinaGeorgiaPennsylvaniaVirginiaOhioMaineFloridaUtahIndianaMontanaKansasSouth CarolinaIdahoOklahomaTennesseeSouth DakotaKentuckyMissouriLouisianaAlabamaArkansasWyomingNebraskaNorth DakotaAlaskaWest VirginiaMississippi

LOWER RANKING HIGHER RANKING


For the fifth consecutive year, tops the State Index by a wide

margin, scoring 93.7 overall. The Golden State’s clean-tech prominence is

broad and deep; it leads the Technology category handily and ranks a

very close second in both Policy and Capital. With enviable solar, wind,

and geothermal resources, a green-minded populace, and generally

effective policy levers at every level of government, California places #1 in all three

subcategories of clean technology deployment: electricity, transportation, and

energy efficiency/green buildings. And the state nearly takes home our Index triple

crown, finishing a very close #2 in the Policy and Capital categories. As in 2013,

California is also home to five of the top seven cities in our Metro index: San

Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, and Los Angeles.

finishes as the #2 clean-tech leadership state

for the second straight year. Its score of 79.4 (no other state except

California topped 70) is all the more impressive considering its 12th-place rank

in the Technology category. Massachusetts, along with New York and two other

New England states in the Top 10, proves that states without robust clean-energy

resources can still be national leaders – it’s #1 in both Policy and Capital. Its nexus

of academic and venture capital resources tops any state that doesn’t house Silicon

Valley, and Massachusetts outscores California on most Capital indicators on a

levelized basis. Energy efficiency is also a traditional strength; Massachusetts is the

only eastern state in the top seven in the Energy Intelligence and Green Building

subcategory. The future bears watching, though, as two-term Governor Deval

Patrick, who has helped the state considerably raise its clean-tech profile since

2007, will leave office early next year.

Less than 10 points separate the states ranking third through 10th

in this year’s Index, but edged out Colorado for third place

with a score of 67, maintaining its #3 ranking for a third consecutive year. Oregon

trails only California in the Technology category, showing particular strength in

hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, and green buildings.

LEED-certified design and construction has long been a point of pride (and jobs)

in the Portland metro area and statewide, and Oregon ranks third in the Energy

Intelligence and Green Building subcategory. Oregon’s strong Technology score

overcomes its performance in Policy and Capital, where it slipped from sixth in last

year’s Index to 11th in both categories.

places a very close fourth with a score of 66.8, up one place

from the 2013 Index. Strong renewable energy deployments and energy

intelligence/green buldings performance help the state place fifth in Technology,

but its best category is a #4 rank in Capital. A key reason is the Denver metro

area (ranked 10th in the Metro Index), home to the U.S. Department of Energy’s

National Renewable Energy Laboratory and an increasingly vibrant ecosystem for

clean-tech startups.


Like neighboring Massachusetts, excels despite a lower

(18th) ranking in Technology, placing fifth overall at 64.8. Strong

policy leadership, exemplified by the state’s NY Green Bank under the direction of

the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) help

make New York #3 in the Policy category. And diverse capital resources, ranging

from New York City’s clean-tech incubators to General Electric’s Global Research

Center in upstate Niskayuna, combine to give the Empire State a fifth-place rank-

ing in the Capital category.

moved up one spot from last year to sixth place, with a

score of 61.9. A traditional leader in Policy, the state ranks fifth in that

category with strong across-the-board performance in both mandates

and incentives – an interesting contrast with neighboring Arizona, which ranks

just 30th in Policy. New Mexico’s robust Capital resources, including the famed

DOE labs at Los Alamos and Sandia, help the state achieve a sixth-place finish in

that category.

, scoring 61.5, maintained its #8 ranking from last year. Illinois

trails only Massachusetts, California, and New York in Policy, and is one

of the few states offering both renewable energy and energy efficiency

bonds. The state ranks just 17th in Technology, but makes the Top 10 in Capital at

#9; it’s one of just seven states that’s home to a DOE Lab, clean-energy incubator

or accelerator, and top-ranked green MBA program.

dropped one place from last year to seventh with an

overall score of 61.6. The state continues its perennial strong leadership

in Technology (fourth) and Policy (seventh), with pro-clean tech Governor Jay Inslee

forwarding the supportive policies of predecessor Christine Gregoire in his first

year in office. The state’s technology deployment leadership is diverse, with strong

scores across clean electricity, clean transportation, and efficiency/green buildings

indicators. But Washington fell five places from the 2013 Index to 16th in Capital,

ranking just 23rd in the Financial Capital subcategory. Its venture capital dollars

per capita (2011-13) score trails much lower overall ranking states such as Virginia,

Nevada, and South Carolina.

Rounding out the State Index Top 10 are two New England states,

and Connecticut, displacing Minnesota and Hawaii from last

year’s Index. Vermont leapt six places from 15th in 2013, placing ninth with

a score of 58.6. With the smallest population of any state except Wyoming, Ver-

mont gets a lot of bang for the buck in normalized scores, particularly in indicators

like venture capital deals, energy efficiency program dollars, and hybrid and electric

vehicles. Vermont ranks #3 in Capital and is the highest-ranking eastern state in

Technology, finishing eighth.

cracks the top 10 for the first time. Home to the nation’s

first statewide green bank, the Clean Energy Finance and Investment

Authority, the state is a recognized national leader in Policy and ranks ninth in

that category, with particular strength in regulations and mandates. It’s also a top

performer in fuel cell capacity and clean-energy patent activity.



CaliforniaOregonHawaiiWashingtonColoradoIowaNevadaVermontSouth DakotaMassachusettsMinnesotaArizonaUtahIdahoMaineVirginiaIllinoisNew YorkMarylandOklahomaNew MexicoDelawareNew HampshireConnecticutGeorgiaWisconsinRhode IslandMichiganKansasTexasNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaNew JerseyMontanaPennsylvaniaIndianaNebraskaWyomingAlaskaOhioSouth CarolinaTennesseeFloridaMissouriAlabamaKentuckyArkansasWest VirginiaLouisianaMississippi


The Technology category tracks the progress of states’ deployment across three

subcategories:

Clean Electricity (renewable energy generation, energy storage,

and fuel cell deployment)

Clean Transportation (use of electric vehicles, hybrids, biofuels,

natural gas vehicles, and charging/fueling infrastructure)

Energy Intelligence & Green Building (green building projects, smart grid

deployment, and efficient energy use)

The three subcategories are weighted equally.

The 2014 State Index marks the third straight year in which California has led

the nation in all three Technology subcategories, resulting in a dominating perfor-

mance with its top score of 100 eclipsing the rest of the pack (led by #2 Oregon’s

73.9) by a huge margin. After California and Oregon, four other states among the

overall top 10 – Colorado, Washington, Vermont, and Massachusetts – make the

top 10 in Technology.

But more than any other category, Technology includes states that that don’t

necessarily score highly in other areas or in the overall Index. The reason: access to

and exploitation of abundant clean-energy resources. Iowa and South Dakota, for

example, which generated more than one quarter of the electricity in their states

in 2013 from wind turbines, crack the Technology top 10 despite respective overall

27.38% 15,571

25.95% 2,688

19.39% 9,430

16.82% 2,648

15.74% 8,069

15.64% 5,530

14.95% 29,908

14.79% 10,881

14.20% 7,581

12.70% 7,639

Source: EIA with Clean Edge analysis. Clean electricity sources include wind, solar PV and thermal, and geothermal. EIA electricity generation data is gathered from monthly surveys of power plants with peak capacity of at least 1 MW, meaning sub-1 MW solar installations do not count toward generation totals.Full dataset available to subscription clients.

rankings of 23rd and 39th. Hawaii (12th overall) and Nevada (17th overall) make

the top 10 by tapping wind, solar, and geothermal resources, coming in at #3 and

#7 respectively.

Two Northeast states in the overall top 10, Vermont and Massachusetts, performed

better in Technology than the region traditionally has; Vermont is #8 (up from 13th

last year) and Massachusetts #10 (up from 14th). Both states have made energy


12.90% 358.20

7.00% 5,183.39

6.25% 1,184.64

5.50% 1,563.12

4.03% 424.01

3.36% 41.51

3.10% 444.97

3.01% 256.64

2.41% 360.37

1.95% 62.79

Source: Preliminary IREC and EIA data with Clean Edge analysis. Solar PV capacity factor varies by location and climate and has a large effect on how productively installed capacity translates to electricity generation. Full dataset available to subscription clients.

32.51% 5,177

25.59% 1,681

20.67% 2,967

20.27% 3,153

19.81% 973

19.25% 783

19.20% 2,987

16.83% 1,410

15.60% 2,332

13.34% 3,134

Source: AWEA and EIA data with Clean Edge analysis. Capacity factor - which for wind energy averages about 25-40% - has a large impact on how productively installed capacity translates to electricity generation.Full dataset available to subscription clients.

the record 4.75 GW installed throughout the U.S. Solar PV capacity in California

now exceeds 5 GW and accounts for seven percent of the state’s total generation

capacity in 2013, but Hawaii leads the U.S. with 12.9 percent of its capacity now

coming from solar.

In terms of percentage of a state’s electricity generated from clean sources in 2013,

however, these state solar champions take a back seat to the wind-powered (and

generally less populated) states of the Midwest and Great Plains. Two states, Iowa

and South Dakota, generated more than 25 percent of their power from clean

sources (all wind) during the year, and four more – Kansas, Idaho (with some

geothermal), Minnesota (with a bit of solar PV), and North Dakota – exceeded 15

efficiency and the harnessing of admittedly limited clean-energy resources a top

priority, and rank in the top 10 nationally in hybrid and electric vehicle ownership

per capita. Other top 10 Northeast states did not fare as well in the Technology

category: New York is #18 and Connecticut #24.

California’s dominance of the Clean Electricity subcategory stems from robust

deployment in the solar PV, wind, and geothermal sectors, but it was solar PV

that took center stage in 2013. California added 2.62 GW of new PV capacity

during the year (the lion’s share of it utility-scale) – accounting for 55 percent of


17,754.2 680,519

15,088.0 59,296

14,700.1 102,460

14,238.1 8,970

12,164.2 100,963

11,924.2 15,740

11,917.1 16,684

11,538.6 77,193

11,484.1 68,101

10,692.4 56,349

Source: IHS Automotive, with Clean Edge derived analysis. IHS Automotive Vehicles in Operation data is based on a snapshot taken April 1, 2014.Full dataset available to subscription clients.

hydro renewables. Texas is home to the nation’s most wind power capacity by far –

12.35 GW – but it’s just over 11 percent of this energy-hungry state’s total installed

electricity generating capacity of a staggering 110.77 GW. The more populous

but more energy-efficient California, by contrast, has total electricity generating

capacity of 74 GW.

Total solar capacity is a tale of three states; New Jersey joined California and Ari-

zona in 2013 as the only states exceeding a gigawatt of cumulative PV capacity.

Fast-growing North Carolina surged to #4 in the nation, but is well behind the top

three at 469 MW – less than two percent of the state’s total capacity.

The top five states in the Clean Transportation category remained unchanged from

last year: California, Utah, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. California notches

the top score of 100, but Utah and Hawaii score very well at 85.8 and 80.7. All in

the western U.S., these leaders are actually quite diverse. California leads in hybrid

and electric vehicles per million people, Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest states

in EV charging infrastructure, and Utah in natural gas vehicles and compressed

natural gas fueling stations.

A dozen states now have more than 10,000 registered hybrid vehicles per mil-

lion people, led by California’s 17,754 (more than 680,000 total registrations). In

California, where Tesla Motors recently surpassed Toyota as the state’s leading auto

industry employer, there are approximately 80,000 EVs (including plug-in hybrids)

on the road.

percent. Kansas, one of many states that have fought off political challenges to its

RPS mandates, was particularly noteworthy, boosting its clean electricity percent-

age from 11.43 percent in 2012 – eighth-best in the U.S. – to 19.39 percent in

2013, good for #3. (It should be noted that our Clean Electricity indicators track

the amount of clean electricity generated within a state; most states’ RPS specify

the percentage of clean electricity in their investor-owned utilities’ total energy

mix, which often includes clean power purchased from other states.)

Iowa’s wind power capacity (5.18 GW) now exceeds 30 percent of its total installed

capacity; eight other states get more than 15 percent of their capacity from non-


113.3 597 43 255 184

111.1 70 5 27 21

103.1 405 54 214 86

102.3 713 34 312 249

93.8 196 7 91 78

91.6 543 21 242 193

86.7 580 40 253 168

86.6 719 25 268 277

74.1 43 4 23 12

73.0 2,797 247 1201 868

Source: USGBC data with Clean Edge analysis. USGBC data is gathered from the Public LEED Project Directory and includes all projects certified through 12/31/2013.Full dataset available to subscription clients.

Leadership in this subcategory tracks very closely with the overall Index, and re-

mained consistent with 2013 results. The top five states – California, Colorado,

Oregon, Massachusetts, and Nevada – all kept the same rankings as last year, and

the first four are also in the top four overall. California’s top score of 100 easily

bests Colorado’s 88.7, down slightly from last year’s 89.8. Colorado does take top

honors in the key indicator of LEED Building Deployment, which specifically mea-

sures a state’s total number of LEED-certified projects per million people. Colorado,

Vermont, Oregon, and Washington each now exceed 100 LEED projects per million

people for the first time.

California’s decades-old leadership in energy efficiency continues, although its lead

over #2 Hawaii in the indicator of Electricity Consumption (annual kWh) per Capita

narrowed to less than 100 Kwh per capita (6,704, compared with Hawaii’s 6,767).

With the exception of #9 Alaska, the remaining top 11 states in this indicator (all

notching less than 9,000 annual kWh per capita in 2013) are all in the Northeast

– the six New England states plus New York and New Jersey. The combination

of harsh climate, aging building stock, and high regional energy costs make this

region the ‘perfect storm’ for a strong focus on energy efficiency.



MassachusettsCaliforniaNew YorkIllinoisNew MexicoNew JerseyWashingtonRhode IslandConnecticutMinnesotaOregonColoradoHawaiiNew HampshireWisconsinNorth CarolinaMichiganMarylandKentuckyIndianaDelawareTexasMontanaVermontOhioGeorgiaMissouriLouisianaArkansasArizonaNevadaPennsylvaniaFloridaOklahomaUtahMaineIowaSouth CarolinaAlabamaKansasVirginiaTennesseeSouth DakotaIdahoWyomingMississippiNebraskaWest VirginiaAlaskaNorth Dakota


The Policy category of the State Index is slightly different from the Technology and

Capital categories in that it is based not on quantitative industry metrics, but rather

on each state’s implementation of important clean-tech policies. The category

includes two subcategories: Regulations & Mandates represent the metaphorical

“sticks” and Incentives are the figurative “carrots.” Policy indicators are mostly

scored on a yes or no basis – either a given policy exists in a state or it doesn’t.

Massachusetts leads all other states in this year’s policy category, as it did last year.

The state tied with California for first in Regulations & Mandates, and retained the

top spot in Incentives (with six other states, including California, tied for second).

Rounding out the top five states for policy are California, New York, Illinois, and

New Mexico. This is a slight change from last year, with Minnesota dropping out

of the top five, and New Mexico moving up.

The Regulations & Mandates subcategory covers transportation policies, building

codes, and climate change targets, but the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is

arguably the sharpest legislative tool in a state’s arsenal and so several indicators

are used to assess the strength and scope of this policy. First, the Index tracks the

existence of RPS – for which 29 states qualify. Credit is next given to states that have

instituted more aggressive targets, defined as at least 20 percent from renewables

by 2020, or 25 percent by 2025 – 16 states receive credit here for what we call a

Strong RPS. An additional indicator called Smart RPS credits states that disqualify

nuclear and so-called “clean coal” as energy sources to meet their RPS mandates.

Evaluating state-level efforts to combat climate change, the subcategory also tracks

states that have established climate action plans, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction

targets, and are participating in an active regional climate initiative. To date, 34

states have established climate action plans, which identify the most cost-effective

strategies with the greatest impact to reduce local GHG emissions; 19 states have

actually established a specific GHG reduction target. The Regional Greenhouse Gas

Initiative (RGGI), which includes nine northeastern states, was the first active cap-

and-trade program of its kind in the U.S.; California’s emissions trading program

brings the number of states active in cap-and-trade markets to 10.

The Incentives subcategory tracks availability of state-level loans and rebates for

renewable energy and energy efficiency, vehicle purchasing rebates, and utility

performance incentives. One of the most effective incentives is utility revenue

decoupling – the separating of a utility’s profit from the amount of electricity gen-

erated. While not all decoupling rules are created equally, decoupling expanded in

a big way in 2013, with 15 new states implementing such policies for electricity.

Although the top three Policy states (Massachusetts, California, and New York) are

leaders in both Regulations & Mandates and Incentives, the top 10 states in those

two subcategories yield some interesting contrasts. Oregon, Washington, Delaware,

and Maryland feature strong Regulations & Mandates but are weaker in Incentives;

Oregon, for example, no longer has the Business Energy Tax Credit to encourage clean-

tech manufacturing. New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Kentucky are not in the Regulations

& Mandates top 10, but are among the six states tied for the #2 score in Incentives.


Sources include ACEEE, DSIRE database, and the EPA. Commercial and Residential Building Energy Policies are scored based on their relation to ASHRAE and IECC standards. Scores are broken into four tiers and represented by circles: fully shaded (strongest); 2/3 shaded (2nd tier); 1/3 shaded (3rd tier); unshaded (weakest or no codes).

REG

ULA

TIO

NS

& M

AN

DAT

ESIN

CEN

TIVE

S


REG

ULA

TIO

NS

& M

AN

DAT

ESIN

CEN

TIVE

S

Sources include ACEEE, DSIRE database, and the EPA. Commercial and Residential Building Energy Policies are scored based on their relation to ASHRAE and IECC standards. Scores are broken into four tiers and represented by circles: fully shaded (strongest); 2/3 shaded (2nd tier); 1/3 shaded (3rd tier); unshaded (weakest or no codes).



MassachusettsCaliforniaVermontColoradoNew YorkNew MexicoNew JerseyConnecticutIllinoisMichiganOregonVirginiaRhode IslandTexasPennsylvaniaWashingtonFloridaNew HampshireNevadaOhioDelawareSouth CarolinaGeorgiaTennesseeKansasMaineNorth CarolinaArizonaWisconsinIowaMarylandMinnesotaIdahoHawaiiIndianaAlabamaWest VirginiaMontanaUtahLouisianaWyomingArkansasOklahomaKentuckyNebraskaMissouriNorth DakotaSouth DakotaMississippiAlaska


The Capital category measures both clean-tech investment activity in the Financial

Capital subcategory and indicators such as patent activity and the presence of

top-rated educational, research, and incubator institutions and activities in the

subcategory of Human and Intellectual Capital. Massachusetts is the #1 Capital

state for the fifth straight year, although its lead over second-place California nar-

rowed from more than four points last year to just 1.2 points (87.8 to California’s

86.6) in the 2014 Index. Massachusetts, the biggest hub of clean-tech venture

capital outside of California, takes top honors in Financial Capital (normalized for

population), while New York, a center of educational and research prowess, is #1

in the Human and Intellectual Capital subcategory.

Eight of the top 10 Capital states are in the overall Index top 10. The exceptions are

seventh-ranked New Jersey (11th overall) and #10 Michigan (14th overall); they dis-

place Oregon (dropping from sixth to 11th in Capital) and Washington (also dropping

five spots, to 16th). The rankings of these two Pacific Northwest states were partially

impacted by the deletion of the Green Jobs indicator (see note on page 46). Vermont

jumped from seventh a year ago to third, improving its score from 56.6 to 71.3,

performing well in VC dollars per capita and energy efficiency program expenditures.

Overall VC investment in clean tech continued to decline in the U.S. in 2013. Mas-

sachusetts repeated as the leader in this indicator, but dollars invested per capita

in companies based in the state dropped considerably from $75.94 to $64.75,

even as total deals increased from 40 to 56. Second-ranked California actually saw

$64.75 $433.4 56

$58.67 $2,249.0 207

$25.11 $132.3 29

$22.00 $61.4 10

$19.89 $71.5 10

$16.10 $425.9 47

$14.71 $15.5 4

$13.51 $39.2 8

$13.04 $51.2 8

$12.30 $66.6 11

Source: Cleantech Group data with Clean Edge analysis. Cleantech Group investment data used includes venture and growth financing rounds in the following sectors: Air & Environment; Biofuels & Biomaterials; Energy Efficiency; Energy Storage; Materials; Recycling & Waste; Smart Grid; Solar; Transportation; and Wind.Full dataset available to subscription clients.

a tiny increase, from $58.51 to $58.67, and deals grew from 143 in 2012 to 207

in 2013. After these two leaders, the top states in this indicator are well behind;

#3 Colorado recorded just $25.11 in VC per capita, down from $32.40 the previous

year. Texas surged onto the leaderboard (sixth place) with 47 deals worth $16.10

per capita, up from $7.01 in 2012. Another top 10 new comer in this indicator,

#4 Nevada, recorded 10 deals worth a combined total of more than $60 million.


Source: Cleantech Group data with Clean Edge analysis. Full dataset available to subscription clients.

In the Human and Intellectual Capital subcategory, the top

seven states represent virtually every region of the country:

New York, California, New Mexico, Colorado, New Jersey,

Illinois, and Virginia. They are the only states receiving credit

for having all three clean tech-related institutions tracked by

our Index: a DOE lab, at least one clean-energy incubator or

accelerator, and a business school with a top-ranked green

MBA program.

Delaware, with a long tradition in solar PV research and

the formidable R&D presence of DuPont, is #1 in the clean

energy patents per million people indicator for the second

straight year. But Michigan, the hub of automotive and

battery technology, finishes first in patents granted over

the past decade. For patents granted in 2013, Vermont

(#3) and New Hampshire (#8) moved into the top 10,

displacing Arizona and Oregon from last year’s Index.

$0

$500

$1,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

MNCTAZDCNCNYCOTXMACA

$0

$500

$1,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

Water & Wastewater

Wind

Other Cleantech

Conventional Fuels

Energy Efficiency

Energy Storage

Fuel Cells & Hydrogen

Geothermal

Hydro & Marine Power

Recycling & Waste

Smart Grid

Solar

Transportation

Advanced Materials

Agriculture & Forestry

Air

Biofuels & Biochemicals

Biomass Generation


Source: Data from Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. with Clean Edge analysis. Full dataset available to subscription clients.

29.0 27

26.7 264

20.6 13

12.3 82

11.7 42

8.6 330

8.3 44

8.3 11

7.2 141

6.7 14

Source: Data from Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. with Clean Edge analysis. Full dataset available to subscription clients.

0

50

100

150

200

350

300

250

ILNJCTCOOHTXMANYMICA

Hydro

Geothermal

Biofuels

Tidal/Wave

Hybrid/Electric

Solar

Wind

Fuel Cells


The structure of the State Index includes four distinct layers. The top layer, the

State Index itself, is a set of 50 state scores which evaluates each state based on

involvement and leadership in clean technology. Results of the top layer are derived

from performance in three equally weighted categories – technology, policy, and

capital – that each play an important role in a state’s positioning in the clean-tech

industry. Each of these categories is composed of two or three subcategories,

which themselves include a set of individual indicators. Some minor methodology

changes were made in this edition of the State Index, but generally the structure

remains the same.

The overall State Index measures each state on a 100-point scale and is the result

of many calculations made at the indicator, subcategory, and category levels.

First, are calculated on a scale of 0 to 100. The best-performing

state in an individual indicator receives a score of 100; the worst-performing state

gets a 0. All other states receive scores based on where they fall between the best

and worst-performing states.

To put states on an even playing field, all quantitative indicators are adjusted for

state size using metrics such as state population, state GDP, electricity generation

capacity, etc. By reporting in terms of per capita or percent of state totals, smaller

states are not punished for having relatively smaller economies.

Several indicators, like those related to policy, are qualitative rather than quantita-

tive. In this case, qualifying states receive indicator scores of 100 and non-qualifying

states get 0.

range from 0 to 100 and are calculated in the same fashion

as individual indicators, with a score of 100 given to the state with the best aver-

age indicator score in each subcategory, and the state with the lowest average

indicator score receiving a 0. All other states receive scores between 0 and 100

based on performance relative to the best and worst-performing states.

are calculated from a simple averaging of underlying subcat-

egory scores; and the ultimate are calculated

from averaging the three equally weighted category scores

Along with an extensive level of clean-energy data mining from sources in the

public domain, Clean Edge has also teamed up with private data providers to offer

the highest level of industry intelligence. Private data partners include Cleantech

Group, IHS Automotive, Fuel Cells 2000, Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C.,

and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.


The following is a list of indicators used to calculate the State Index. Indicators

are grouped by subcategory and are shaded according to which category they are

included in.


mailto:yonker%40cleanedge.com?subject=


San Francisco, CASan Jose, CASan Diego, CAPortland, ORSacramento, CABoston, MA Los Angeles, CA Washington, DC Austin, TX Denver, CO Seattle, WAChicago, IL Dallas, TX Houston, TX Minneapolis, MNAtlanta, GASalt Lake City, UT Oklahoma City, OK Detroit, MI Hartford, CT Philadelphia, PARiverside, CANew York, NYRaleigh, NC Milwaukee, WIPhoenix, AZNashville, TNPittsburgh, PACharlotte, NC Indianapolis, IN Kansas City, MOColumbus, OH Providence, RILas Vegas, NV Buffalo, NY Baltimore, MD San Antonio, TXVirginia Beach, VAOrlando, FLCleveland, OH Louisville, KY Cincinnati, OH Richmond, VA St. Louis, MOTampa, FLMiami, FLMemphis, TNJacksonville, FL New Orleans, LABirmingham, AL


Denver

San AntonioAustin

Houston

Dallas

Kansas CitySt. Louis

Atlanta

CharlotteRaleigh

Virginia Beach

BaltimoreWashington, DC

New York

BostonProvidence

Philadelphia

Richmond

Hartford

Louisville

Columbus

Orlando

Miami

Birmingham

New Orleans

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Sacramento

San Diego

Riverside

Las Vegas

Salt Lake City

Phoenix

Oklahoma City

Minneapolis

MemphisNashville

MilwaukeeDetroit

Jacksonville

Tampa

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

Buffalo

Cleveland

Chicago

San Jose Cincinnati


For the third straight year since our inaugural Metro Index in 2012, top clean-tech

leadership among U.S. metro areas remains a tale of two Northern California cities.

In 2014, San Francisco retains the top spot from last year over San Jose, and its

best-ever score of 94.4 extends its lead over its southern neighbor’s 79.7 to nearly

15 points. San Francisco led San Jose by about nine points last year, while San Jose

took the top spot in 2012.

As in the past two years, five of the top 10 metro areas are in the #1 state in the

State Index, California – the top two cities plus San Diego, Sacramento, and Los

Angeles. The connection between state and metro leadership continues with three

other Metro Index top 10s located in the highest-ranking states: Portland in #3

Oregon, Boston in #2 Massachusetts, and Denver in #4 Colorado. The two outliers

are Austin, returning to the top 10 after placing 11th last year, and Washington,

D.C., a high-performing metro region without a state to call home. Notably, the

top eight metro areas are all located on the West or East Coast.

– The City by the Bay continues its broad-based clean-tech

leadership across all four categories of the Metro Index, placing first or second in

three categories and fifth in the other. Acknowledged worldwide as a leading hub of

the clean-tech industry, San Francisco also benefits from a green-minded populace

and highly supportive regional clean-energy and energy-efficiency policies. Raising

its score from 89.2 last year to 94.4, the metro area’s leadership also includes the

recent emergence of Oakland as a center of clean-tech industry and deployment.

– San Jose’s overall score dropped slightly from 80.3 to 79.7,

but it’s still nearly 14 points higher than #3 metro area San Diego. Repeating last

year’s #1 rank in Clean-Tech Investment, Innovation & Workforce, the metro area

boasting Silicon Valley continues to be the nation’s preeminent nexus of clean-

tech R&D, venture capital, and entrepreneurship. San Jose is also #2 in Advanced

Transportation and #3 in Clean Electricity & Carbon Management, but just 21st in

Green Buildings. San Jose and Austin are the only metro areas in the top 10 with

populations under two million.

– California cities sweep the top three places in the Metro

Index for the first time, with San Diego jumping four spots from #7 a year ago –

and eight spots since 2012. Scoring 66.3 overall, San Diego ranks second in Clean

Electricity and Carbon Management, fourth in Advanced Transportation, and sixth

in the other two categories. Political turmoil (ex-Mayor Bob Filner was forced to

resign in 2013) has not slowed the city’s efforts to make clean tech a cornerstone

of economic development; the metro area is home to more than 840 clean tech-

related companies, according to the Clean Tech San Diego industry association.

– Portland’s overall score of 62.9 remained virtually even with

last year’s 62.8, but San Diego’s surge nudged the Rose City down one place. Port-


land remains an all-around national leader in clean tech, finishing sixth or better

in three categories and 12th (up from 16th a year ago) in Clean-Tech Investment,

Innovation & Workforce.

– California’s capital city improved its score from 55.6 a

year ago to 61, moving up one spot in the overall rankings. The fast-growing

Sacramento metro area is #1 in the U.S. in the Clean Electricity and Carbon Man-

agement category; most of the area is served by the Sacramento Municipal Utility

District, a perennial national leader in its green power sales and renewable-energy

mix. Sacramento also garners a #7 ranking in both Green Buildings and Advanced

Transportation, and is #14 in Clean-Tech Investment, Innovation & Workforce.

– The highest-ranking Eastern metro area, Boston jumped four

places from last year, increasing its overall score from 50.5 to 56.2. With its wealth

of academic and research resources, and the nation’s highest concentration of

clean-tech VC funding and deals outside of California, Boston’s #3 rank in Clean-

Tech Investment, Innovation & Workforce trails only San Jose and San Francisco.

Boston also improved from 18th to seventh in Clean Electricity and Carbon Man-

agement; the Boston city government is a top green power purchaser, with its

annual purchase covering 18 percent of city electricity use.

– The Los Angeles metro area’s score stayed level from last

year (56.1 to 56), but the improvement of other cities cost it three places in the

2014 overall rankings. L.A. is a top 10 finisher in Advanced Transportation (#8)

and Clean Electricity and Carbon Management, although it dropped two places

to #4 in the latter category. The sprawling southern California region has made

clean tech an economic development priority, and improved from 13th to 11th in

Clean-Tech Investment, Innovation & Workforce.

– Like Los Angeles, the nation’s capital metro area also

dropped three spots from last year, scoring 53.6 overall compared to 55.7 in 2013.

Washington remains #1 in the Green Buildings category for the third straight year,

benefitting from the preponderance of federal government buildings qualifying for

LEED and Energy Star certification. Washington is just 20th in Clean-Tech Invest-

ment, Innovation & Workforce – the lowest ranking in that category among the

overall top 10 metros – and 12th in the two remaining categories.

– Texas’s state and music capital/tech hub returns to the top

10 after a one-year absence last year at #11, and is the only top 10 metro area

(besides ‘stateless’ Washington, D.C.) not located in a top 10 state. Austin im-

proved from a 48.7 overall score last year to 51.3. Its nexus of academic/research/

financial/government resources committed to clean tech has long been a model

for smaller cities, and Austin (the least populous metro in the top 10, just 35th in

the U.S.) demonstrates that with a #5 rank in Clean-Tech Investment, Innovation &

Workforce. It also makes the top 10 in Clean Electricity and Carbon Management,

ranking 9th in that category.

– Colorado’s capital dropped less than two points from 51.5 to

49.7, but fell two places from 2013. Denver is #3 in Green Buildings for the second

straight year, trailing only Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. It’s #8 in Clean-

Tech Investment, Innovation & Workforce, but 18th in Advanced Transportation,

and 17th in Clean Electricity & Carbon Management.



Washington, DC San Francisco, CADenver, CO Portland, ORSeattle, WASan Diego, CASacramento, CAMinneapolis, MNBoston, MA Atlanta, GACharlotte, NC Milwaukee, WIAustin, TX Chicago, IL Houston, TX Cincinnati, OH Los Angeles, CA Salt Lake City, UT Richmond, VA Dallas, TX San Jose, CAKansas City, MOCleveland, OH Louisville, KY Columbus, OH Phoenix, AZIndianapolis, IN Raleigh, NC Las Vegas, NV Baltimore, MD Pittsburgh, PAVirginia Beach, VADetroit, MI Philadelphia, PAHartford, CT Nashville, TNNew York, NYJacksonville, FL Buffalo, NY San Antonio, TXRiverside, CAOrlando, FLMiami, FLProvidence, RITampa, FLNew Orleans, LASt. Louis, MOMemphis, TNBirmingham, AL Oklahoma City, OK

Cleveland

Denver

San AntonioAustin

Houston

Dallas


Atlanta

CharlotteRaleigh

Virginia Beach

Baltimore

New York

BostonProvidence

Philadelphia

Richmond

Hartford

Cincinnati

Orlando

Miami

Birmingham

New Orleans

San Jose

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Sacramento

San Diego

Riverside

Las Vegas

Salt Lake City

Phoenix

Oklahoma City

Minneapolis

Milwaukee

Chicago

Detroit

Jacksonville

Tampa

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

Columbus

Buffalo

Louisville

Washington, DC

MemphisNashville


With urban populations expanding across the U.S. (and worldwide), the built

environment is a critical measure of metro-area leadership in clean tech. Buildings

account for 40 percent of nationwide greenhouse-gas emissions, but in high-rise

cities like New York, their share can be as high as 75 percent.

The Green Buildings category of the Metro Clean Tech Index uses four equally

weighted indicators to evaluate leadership in each metro area. Two of these in-

dicators come from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Using the USGBC’s

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) project database, the Index

calculates the number of projects and square feet per capita for each of the 50

largest metro areas. Cities and urban areas are a key part of the LEED market in the

U.S., with more than half of all certified projects and two-thirds of all square foot-

age located in the 50 metropolitan statistical areas covered in the Metro Index. The

remaining two indicators track the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standard

registry of Energy Star-qualified buildings – the EPA’s rating system for energy ef-

ficiency – by the number of projects and square feet per capita in each metro area.

Perhaps because of the length of new construction cycles, the list of leading metro

areas in Green Buildings shows little volatility from year to year. The rankings of the

top nine cities in this category remain the same from 2013, led by Washington,

D.C., San Francisco, and Denver. Continuing Western dominance in the category,

the next four are Portland, Seattle, San Diego, and Sacramento. Rounding out the

top 10 are Minneapolis, Boston, and Atlanta (the lone newcomer in the 2014 top

10, swapping places from last year with 12th-place Milwaukee). All three of those

metro areas, along with Denver and Sacramento, are state capitals (the Minneapolis

area includes St. Paul); government nearly always leads the private sector in building-

code requirements mandating LEED and/or other energy efficiency measures.

That’s especially true of the federal government, as Washington, D.C. has been

#1 in the Metro Index Green Buildings category for three years running. For the

second straight year, the nation’s capital and its environs added about 200 LEED

142.9 850

124.8 564

118.6 274

110.8 400

91.9 248

91.6 294

83.5 391

76.3 87

74.7 207

68.8 132

Source: USGBC with Clean Edge analysis. LEED Certified Projects includes all buildings awarded LEED certification through 12/31/2013. This does not include LEED for Homes projects.Full dataset available to subscription clients.


projects to its total, which numbered 850 at the end of 2013. That total leads the

nation, even before it’s normalized for population to calculate our indicator rank-

ings; the much more populous New York City metro area is second with 657. The

D.C. area, which includes dozens of federal buildings in Maryland and northern

Virginia, has more than 140 LEED projects per million people; other metro areas

with more than 100 are San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle.

The top 10 metro areas in LEED Square Feet per Capita vary somewhat from the

LEED Projects indicator, due to cities with a preponderance of larger buildings like

Las Vegas and Chicago, but are essentially the same as a year ago. #2 San Fran-

cisco and #3 Las Vegas swapped places, while San Diego displaced Dallas at #10.

Washington, D.C.’s 32.1 LEED square feet per capita not only leads all other metro

areas by a wide margin; but its total of 191.2 million LEED square feet is actually

more than the total of every state in the U.S. except California, Texas, and Illinois.

In addition to LEED-related indicators, the Green Buildings category also includes

Energy Star building certification. Launched by the EPA in 1992, the Energy Star

program has accredited more than 20,000 commercial buildings across the U.S.,

granting Energy Star certification for commercial buildings and industrial plants

that achieve a score of 75 or higher on Energy Star’s 100-point evaluation model.

Energy Star’s energy-specific requirements differ from LEED’s broader overall green

building criteria, resulting in a different metro area leadership mix. Washington,

D.C. places third in this indicator, trailing Sacramento and Denver, as it did in last

year’s Index. #1 Sacramento added 38 Energy Star buildings and plants in 2013

for a total of 380, or 171.2 per million people. Los Angeles has the most total

Energy Star projects, 1,376, but ranks just 16th when normalized for population.

#4 Charlotte and #10 Louisville are metro areas that make the top 10 in this indica-

tor, but not in the LEED-related indicators or the overall Green Buildings category.

32.1 191,151

25.4 114,556

23.5 47,671

23.3 62,956

21.6 77,813

19.6 45,407

17.8 169,892

14.2 26,757

13.6 85,766

13.4 429,122

Source: USGBC with Clean Edge analysis. LEED Certified Square Feet includes all buildings awarded LEED certification through 12/31/2013. This does not include LEED for Homes projects.Full dataset available to subscription clients.

171.2 380

167.4 452

155.0 922

150.4 352

149.3 675

147.0 472

135.0 212

132.5 306

128.6 445

128.6 162

Source: Energy Star with Clean Edge analysis. Energy Star Buildings and Plants includes all projects that have qualified for Energy Star accreditation through 2013. This does not include Energy Star certification for new homes.Full dataset available to subscription clients.



San Francisco, CASan Jose, CASalt Lake City, UT San Diego, CASeattle, WAPortland, ORSacramento, CALos Angeles, CA Oklahoma City, OK Riverside, CAMinneapolis, MNWashington, DC Nashville, TNNew York, NYPhoenix, AZBoston, MA Baltimore, MD Denver, CO Milwaukee, WIAustin, TX Chicago, IL Hartford, CT Raleigh, NC Atlanta, GAOrlando, FLIndianapolis, IN St. Louis, MODetroit, MI Kansas City, MOBuffalo, NY Columbus, OH Dallas, TX Philadelphia, PAPittsburgh, PAVirginia Beach, VARichmond, VA Las Vegas, NV Tampa, FLCharlotte, NC Louisville, KY Providence, RIBirmingham, AL Cincinnati, OH Miami, FLSan Antonio, TXCleveland, OH Houston, TX Jacksonville, FL New Orleans, LAMemphis, TN

Denver

San AntonioAustin

Houston

Dallas


Atlanta

CharlotteRaleigh

Virginia Beach


New York

BostonProvidence

Philadelphia

Richmond

Hartford

Louisville

Columbus

Orlando

Miami

Birmingham

New Orleans

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Las Vegas

Salt Lake City

Phoenix

Oklahoma City

Minneapolis

MemphisNashville

MilwaukeeDetroit

Jacksonville

Tampa

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

Buffalo

Cleveland

Chicago

San Jose

Sacramento

Los Angeles

San Diego

Riverside

Cincinnati


The Advanced Transportation category combines seven indicators to benchmark

U.S. metro areas in the transportation sector, which in many cities is the leading

source of CO2 emissions and environmental impacts. Advanced Transportation

indicators cover three types of advanced vehicles, their related charging or fueling

infrastructure, and public transportation ridership.

As in last year’s Index, metro areas in the western U.S. dominate. The top 10 metros

are all west of the Mississippi River, and all but two, #3 Salt Lake City and #9 Oklahoma

City, are on the West Coast. San Francisco and San Jose rank #1 and #2 in Advanced

Transportation, just as they do in the overall Index, and as they did last year. Salt Lake

City again places third, mainly from its nation-leading use of natural gas vehicles

(NGVs). The Utah state capital has more than one NGV registered for every thousand

people; the next closest metro area, Oklahoma City, has 0.8 registered NGVs for

every thousand people. All other metro areas have less than 0.5 in that indicator.

Overall, the Advanced Transportation top 10 repeats the same metro areas as the 2013

Index. Portland and Sacramento switched places to #6 and #7, respectively. Oklahoma

City and Riverside, California also swapped spots, to #9 and #10 respectively. As they

did last year, all six of California’s largest metro areas make the top 10 in this category:

the five cities represented in the overall Metro Index top 10 plus Riverside, which is 21st

in the overall Index but tenth in Advanced Transportation. Not surprisingly, California

ranks first in the comparable Clean Transportation subcategory in the State Index.

The vehicle registration data categories have one methodological anomaly. Their

data source, IHS Automotive, reports vehicle registration data by Designated

Market Area (DMA), and these geographic areas do not exactly align with the

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) designations used in the other categories and

overall rankings of the Metro Index. Practically speaking, this only affects four

metro areas in this index, all in California. San Francisco/San Jose and Los Angeles/

Riverside are respectively combined into one DMA; they are separate and distinct

MSAs throughout the rest of the Index.

29.67 196,808

29.67 196,808

19.98 58,646

18.90 85,476

17.10 107,190

16.67 282,401

16.67 282,401

16.65 49,197

15.70 60,884

13.15 24,374

Source: Source: IHS Automotive, with Clean Edge derived analysis. IHS Automotive Vehicles in Operation data is based on a snapshot taken April 1, 2014. For this indicator the San Francisco and San Jose metro areas are combined, as are the Los Angeles and Riverside areas.Full dataset available to subscription clients.


102.2 236

79.5 287

73.9 334

71.0 125

67.8 154

66.2 147

63.0 121

56.2 68

54.8 103

51.7 166

Source: Clean Edge analysis of data gathered from the U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center. As of 12/31/2013.Full dataset available to subscription clients.

The San Francisco/San Jose DMA is #1 in both registered hybrid and electric ve-

hicles (EVs), normalized for population, for the third straight year. With nearly 30

hybrids per thousand people, the Bay Area leads by a wide margin. In the much

more nascent EV indicator, the area also leads the way. (GM’s Chevy Volt has a

small backup gasoline engine, but runs mainly on electricity and is classified as an

EV.) Los Angeles/Riverside is fifth in hybrids and third in EVs, with neighboring San

Diego claiming second place in both indicators.

Nationwide EV ownership in the top 50 largest metro areas increased sharply in

2013. This year’s data includes vehicles registered through April 1, 2014, represent-

ing 17 months of sales since the snapshot in last year’s Index. While EV growth

approximately doubled during this period, the total number of EVs is still dwarfed

by the 2.6 million hybrids registered in the top 50 metro areas.

In the EV charging stations indicator, California metros do not have a leadership

stranglehold. Portland (by a wide margin) and Seattle lead for the third year in a

row. The Portland metro area has a total of 236 stations, or more than 102 per

million people; all other metros have less than 80.

Public transportation ridership, measured by average weekday mass transit trips

per capita, is a very different type of indicator. Instead of car-centric California

metro areas, population-dense, public transit-oriented New York leads by far. New

York is joined by Boston, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia in five of

the top six places. But San Francisco – California’s most East Coast-like city, and

also featuring the heavily used BART regional rail system – places second, moving

up one place from last year. San Jose, by contrast, is 21st.

Chicago



Sacramento, CASan Diego, CASan Jose, CALos Angeles, CA San Francisco, CAPortland, ORBoston, MA Dallas, TX Austin, TX Oklahoma City, OK Houston, TX Washington, DC Riverside, CAPhiladelphia, PASeattle, WAChicago, IL Denver, CO Raleigh, NC Charlotte, NC Hartford, CT Pittsburgh, PAIndianapolis, IN Providence, RIBuffalo, NY Nashville, TNLas Vegas, NV Atlanta, GAMinneapolis, MNMemphis, TNMilwaukee, WIDetroit, MI San Antonio, TXPhoenix, AZKansas City, MONew York, NYSt. Louis, MOMiami, FLOrlando, FLLouisville, KY Tampa, FLColumbus, OH Jacksonville, FL Virginia Beach, VANew Orleans, LABaltimore, MD Salt Lake City, UT Cleveland, OH Cincinnati, OH Richmond, VA Birmingham, AL

Denver

San AntonioAustin

Houston


Atlanta

CharlotteRaleigh

Virginia Beach

New York

BostonProvidence

Philadelphia

Richmond

Hartford

Louisville

CincinnatiColumbus

Orlando

Miami

Birmingham

New Orleans

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Salt Lake City

Phoenix

Minneapolis

MemphisNashville

MilwaukeeDetroit

Jacksonville

Tampa

IndianapolisSan Jose

Sacramento

Las Vegas

Dallas

Oklahoma City

Pittsburgh

Buffalo

Baltimore

Cleveland

Los Angeles

San Diego

Riverside

Washington, DC


59.9% 8.0% 13.9%

77.6% 1.9% 20.1%

75.8% 6.4% 7.8%

48.0% 44.7% 6.2%

29.1% 69.5% 4.1%

89.3% 0.1% 9.9%

89.0% 0.8% 9.3%

83.0% 7.0% 10.0%

77.0% 18.0% 4.0%

88.0% 1.0% 10.0%

88.9% 4.6%


The Regional Electricity Mix indicator serves as a proxy for clean electricity on the

regional grid. However, determining the exact mix of fossil and renewable fuels

used by metro areas is a painstaking process. We’ve gathered reports from a range

of sources including independent system operators, regional transmission organiza-

tions, and state-reported utility consumption profiles, ultimately determining the

approximate makeup of the regional electricity fuel mix. Electricity mixes are evalu-

ated on a scale of 0 to 5; high percentages of non-hydro renewables mean higher

scores, while heavy dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear results in lower scores.

The Clean Electricity & Carbon Management category also includes an indicator

tracking the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions emitted from large facilities

(power plants, refineries, industrial factories, waste facilities, and other major emit-

ters) reported by the EPA. The top five metro areas stayed the same from last year’s

Index in this category, emphasizing the value of low-carbon industry in Raleigh’s

research triangle, the tech and creative communities of Seattle, Portland, and Co-

lumbus, and the government, education, and health care industries in Sacramento.

The third indicator in this category is qualitative rather than quantitative. It credits

metro areas that are home to top local government green power purchasers, based

n the EPA’s Green Power Partnership (GPP) program, which tracks participants in

voluntary green power markets.

In this year’s Index, 14 metro areas receive credit for the presence of a top-30

local government green power purchaser, as ranked by total kWh under purchase

contract. The city of Houston was #1 on the GPP list with more than 622 million

kWh, accounting for nearly half of the city’s total power use. On a methodological

note, San Francisco uses its own on-site green power generation (biogas, solar

0.20 247,675

0.58 2,090,118

0.62 1,216,729

0.95 2,196,384

1.36 3,024,408

1.45 3,381,172

1.76 5,649,037

1.76 3,378,777

1.80 3,068,473

1.87 37,368,727

8.90 12,412,187

9.00 85,856,245

9.65 21,989,027

11.02 22,631,709

13.09 82,649,439

15.60 43,698,073

17.73 41,849,412

18.83 23,767,900

23.59 29,277,497

36.09 41,157,107

Source: EPA with Clean Edge analysis. *CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalentFull dataset available to subscription clients.

and small hydro) and green power purchases to meet mandatory California RPS

requirements. Because GPP tracks voluntary, not mandatory, use or purchase of

green power, that puts San Francisco out of GPP’s official parameters, but Clean

Edge credited the city for indexing purposes.



San Jose, CASan Francisco, CABoston, MA Detroit, MI Austin, TX San Diego, CAChicago, IL Denver, CO New York, NYHartford, CT Los Angeles, CA Portland, ORHouston, TX Sacramento, CAPhiladelphia, PAPittsburgh, PAAtlanta, GASeattle, WARaleigh, NC Washington, DC Providence, RIPhoenix, AZSalt Lake City, UT Columbus, OH Dallas, TX Nashville, TNCleveland, OH Virginia Beach, VASan Antonio, TXTampa, FLMinneapolis, MNKansas City, MOOrlando, FLCincinnati, OH Indianapolis, IN Baltimore, MD St. Louis, MOMiami, FLLas Vegas, NV Buffalo, NY Richmond, VA Jacksonville, FL Milwaukee, WIMemphis, TNRiverside, CACharlotte, NC Oklahoma City, OK Birmingham, AL New Orleans, LALouisville, KY

Denver

San AntonioAustin

Houston

Dallas


Atlanta

CharlotteRaleigh

Virginia Beach


New York

BostonProvidence

Philadelphia

Richmond

Hartford

Louisville

CincinnatiColumbus

Orlando

Miami

Birmingham

New Orleans

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Sacramento

Las Vegas

Salt Lake City

Phoenix

Oklahoma City

Minneapolis

MemphisNashville

MilwaukeeDetroit

Jacksonville

Tampa

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

Buffalo

Cleveland

Chicago

San Jose

Los Angeles

San Diego

Riverside


This category measures a metro area’s financial, human, and intellectual capital

with indicators such as venture capital investments in clean tech, clean-energy

patent activity, and the presence (or lack thereof) of U.S. Department of Energy

labs, clean-energy incubators/accelerators, and top-rated Green MBA programs. It

mirrors the Capital category in the State Index fairly closely, and nine of the top 10

metro areas are located in top 10 Capital states.

Although nine metro areas in the top 10 are returnees from last year’s Index, some

of their scores changed substantially, a likely result of deleting the Clean Economy

Jobs indicator from this year’s Index (see sidebar on page 46). San Jose and San

Francisco placed 1-2 in the category as they did in 2013, but the gap between

#2 San Francisco (scoring 95.2, a gain of more than 23 points) and #3 Boston

ballooned to more than 38 points. San Jose’s lead over its Bay Area rival shrunk

from last year but it remains the solid category leader, ranking #1 in venture capital

dollars and deals per capita, #4 in clean energy patents, and earning checks in two

of the three indicators noting the presence of key clean-tech institutions.

Detroit jumped three places in the category to #4, improving from 37.6 to 50.0;

it leads the clean energy patents indicator by a wide margin. Austin moved up a

place to #5, boosting its score from 40.0 to 49.7. Moving into the top 10 in 2014

is #9 New York, jumping from 11th. Rounding out the top 10 are #6 San Diego,

#7 Chicago, #8 Denver, and #10 Hartford. Investment/Innovation/Workforce is one

of the most geographically diverse categories among its leaders, with the top 10

metro areas including three in California, three in the Northeast, two in the Upper

Midwest, one in Texas, and one in Colorado.

2013 was not a strong year for clean-tech VC in the U.S., but the leaderboard in

the Clean Energy VC Investment indicator, which tracks VC dollars per capita over

the previous three years, held fairly steady from last year’s Index. Silicon Valley is

$1,201.78 $2,306.98 142

$764.84 $3,454.22 280

$426.27 $1,996.75 176

$372.21 $700.88 57

$259.05 $831.87 71

$190.47 $217.23 19

$120.73 $1,585.38 98

$113.39 $305.87 50

$79.47 $183.94 21

$78.99 $347.46 26

Source: Cleantech Group data with Clean Edge analysis.Full dataset available to subscription clients.


still king here, with San Jose’s $1,202 per capita far ahead of second-place San

Francisco’s $765. Boston remained in third place, while #4 Austin and #5 San

Diego swapped spots from last year. #10 Phoenix made the top 10 for the first

time, with 26 deals in the past three years amounting to $79 per capita in the

nation’s 12th most populous metro area.

The Clean Energy Patents indicator measures patents (per million people) granted

over the past 11 years. Detroit remains the indicator leader, with 1,597 during that

period, having added 232 patents in 2013. Its 372 patents per million people was

well ahead of ahead of #2 Hartford’s 225. The Detroit area benefits from recent

large commitments by virtually all automakers to hybrid and electric vehicles and

their batteries, and efficiency technologies such as stop/start. The Hartford area

has long been a hub for advances in fuel cells. San Jose, San Francisco, and Boston,

the top three finishers in the overall category, round out the top five in the Clean

Energy Patents indicator.

All of the top five metro areas in this indicator also made the top five in the 2013

Index. In the rest of the top 10, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and San Diego also

return from last year, joined by newcomers Kansas City at #6 (replacing Cleveland

at the same rank in 2013) and Seattle at #10 (replacing Denver).

Only three metro areas – San Francisco, Chicago, and New York – can lay claim to all

three institutions tracked by the final indicator: a DOE lab, a clean energy incubator

and/or accelerator, and a top-ranked Green MBA program (included in the Aspen

Institute’s most recent “Beyond Grey Pinstripes” ranking of the world’s top 100

programs). Of the dozen additional metro areas receiving credit for two out of

three, 10 of them qualify with an incubator and Green MBA program (the San Jose

metro area claims Aspen’s #1 Green MBA program, at Stanford University in Palo

Alto). Only two, Denver and Pittsburgh, have a DOE Lab and Green MBA program

– Denver actually claims three top MBA programs and Pittsburgh two. Fourteen

metro areas receive credit for one of the three, while 21 metros have none.

372.3 1,597

224.6 274

97.3 440

76.6 147

42.7 200

36.1 74

35.3 122

34.0 205

33.0 106

30.7 111

Source: HRFM data with Clean Edge analysis.Full dataset available to subscription clients.


The Metro Index consists of three layers. The top layer, the Metro Index itself, is a

set of 50 metro area scores which evaluates each MSA based on involvement and

leadership in clean tech. Results of the top layer are derived from performance

in four equally weighted categories – green buildings; advanced transportation;

clean electricity & carbon management; and clean-tech investment, innovation, &

workforce – with each category composed of a set of individual indicators.

The overall Metro Index evaluates the 50 largest metro areas on a 100-point scale,

deriving each score from category and individual indicator performance. The sco

Documents

Ellington CMS...2014/07/16 · © 2014 Clean Edge, Inc. (). This report, and the models and analysis contained herein, are the property of Clean Edge and may not