While Congress dithers on energy efficiency, cities are moving ahead with energy-saving steps such as bike-sharing, tougher building codes, electric vehicle charging stations and cool roofs, says a study out Tuesday that ranks 34 major U.S. cities, According to USAToday.

Boston takes first place for its efforts to reduce energy use, followed by Portland, Ore., New York City, San Francisco, Seattle and Austin, according to the first-ever scorecard by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a Washington-based research group.

What’s exciting is the quickening pace of these efforts, says lead author Eric Mackres. “Over the past five or so years, cities are rediscovering how important energy efficiency is to their economies,” he says, adding that federal Recovery Act funds helped them test potential solutions — some of which have since been adopted.

Capitol Hill is another story. Congress remains stalled on a bipartisan, cost-neutral bill that offers financial incentives, worker training, expert advice and other tools to help businesses adopt energy-efficient technologies. The bill passed a Senate committee earlier this year but is now stuck on the Senate floor, because lawmakers have attached controversial amendments that have nothing to do with energy efficiency.

“We may have to take the bill down,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,noting unrelated amendments including one by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to weaken President Obama’s health care reform law. The bill’s authors, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.J., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio, had removed some provisions to avoid divisiveness, but acrimony ensued anyway.

Cities have picked up the slack. More are requiring buildings to disclose energy use so prospective renters can anticipate utility costs, helping low-income households make efficiency retrofits so they save money and toughening building codes so less energy is used.

More than a dozen cities have launched bike-sharing programs and about two dozen — including Atlanta, Houston and San Antonio — have installed EV charging stations in public areas. New York City, Houston and Chicago have each launched programs to plant 1 million trees citywide. At least 10 — including Dallas, Miami and Philadelphia — have policies to promote or require “cool roofs” to reduce how much solar heat a building absorbs.

The ACEEE scored the cities for their efforts in five areas: buildings, transportation, energy and water utility programs, local government operations and community-wide initiatives. While Boston got the highest overall score of 77, out of a maximum 100, Portland did best in transportation, Seattle in building policies and San Francisco (along with Boston) in utility benefit programs.

In its Renew Boston effort, Boston has partnered with investor-owned utilities to tell consumers about rate-payer financed incentives for buying energy-efficient appliances and making energy-saving retrofits.

“Environmental development goes hand in hand with economic development,” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said at a press briefing on the scorecard. He says both benefit city residents, although officials need to learn “street” rather than “scientific” talk to help them understand how.

“Both business and the public are with us,” Portland Mayor Charlie Hales told reporters, adding they realize that energy efficiency is good for the environment as well as the bottom line.

The second-highest-scoring tier of cities, earning between 53 and 56 points, includes Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia and Denver. The lowest-scoring cities were Detroit (19 points) and Jacksonville (17 points).

“All cities, even the highest scorers, have significant room for improvement,” the report says. Mackres says it ranked cities on their efforts rather than actual energy use, because data on the latter is incomplete and climate differences can affect how much energy cities use.

How U.S. cities rank on energy efficiency efforts

Rank..City……….Total score (Maximum 100)
1……Boston, MA…………….76.75
2……Portland,OR………….70.00
3……New York City………..69.75
3…..San Francisco, CA…. 69.75
5…..Seattle, WA…………… 65.25
6.. ..Austin, TX……………… 62.00
7…..Washington, DC…….56.00
8…..Minneapolis, MN……..55.25
9…..Chicago, IL………………54.75
10..Philadelphia, PA……. 54.50
11..Denver, CO……………. 52.75
12..Baltimore, MD…………46.50
13.Houston, TX……………. 45.25
14..Dallas, TX……………….44.25
15..Phoenix, AZ…………….43.50
16..Atlanta, GA…………….. 42.50
16..San Antonio, TX…….. 42.50
18..Sacramento, CA……. 40.75
19..Columbus, OH……… .38.50
20..San Diego, CA……….. 38.25
21..Riverside, CA…………. 37.25
21..San Jose, CA…………. 37.25
23..El Paso, TX……………. .36.25
23..St. Louis, MO……………36.25
25.. Pittsburgh, PA………. .34.25
26.. Fort Worth, TX………. .32.75
27.. Miami, FL……………… .32.00
28.. Los Angeles, CA……. 31.50
29.. Indianapolis, IN…….. .28.25
30.. Tampa, FL…………….. .26.75
31..Charlotte, NC…………. .23.75
32..Memphis, TN……………23.50
33..Detroit, MI………………. .19.00
34.. Jacksonville, FL………17.25

The global renewable energy industry has reacted angrily to the government’s proposals to water down green commitments for new-build properties.  The government is proposing to scrap the 2008 Planning and Energy Act which gave local authorities the freedom to set their own carbon, renewables and energy efficiency targets for new-build properties.

The latest Housing Standards review issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) notes that “it is no longer appropriate for local plan policies to specify additional standards for how much of the energy use from homes should come from on-site renewables”.

The document continues: “The government considers that with this proposed new approach, it will need to consider the role of the Planning and Energy Act 2008…the government considers that the Act may need to be amended or removed.”

The renewables industry had already expressed frustration at the recently updated Building Regulations which weakened carbon reduction targets and, even in DCLG’s eyes, failed to sufficiently incentivise on-site renewables. The proposal to remove the Planning and Energy Act will therefore remove local authorities’ only tool to incentivise the take up of on-site renewables.

REA chief executive Dr Nina Skorupska explained: “How can a government claiming to support both localism and renewable energy suggest doing away with the only policy tool that enables local authorities to promote the use of renewables in new housing?

“It is cheaper to install renewables during construction rather than retrofit, and doing so means the occupants can benefit from lower energy bills from day one. The government should be seeking to future proof new housing against rising energy prices and make it fit for the 21st century.”