The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions seeks to inform the design and implementation of federal policies that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Drawing from its extensive peer-reviewed published works, in-house policy analyses, and tracking of current legislative proposals, the Center provides research, analysis, and recommendations to policymakers in Congress and the Executive Branch. Read More

The Clean Power Plan's Clean Energy Incentive Program

The Clean Power Plan's Clean Energy Incentive Program

November 2015

Download the Fact Sheet (PDF)

Under its final Clean Power Plan (CPP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to establish the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) to encourage early action in meeting CPP objectives. The CEIP is a voluntary program for states to incentivize renewable and energy efficient projects by giving them assets that will be tradeable in Clean Power Plan markets. EPA outlined an initial structure for the CEIP, though it is soliciting stakeholder feedback before finalizing elements of the CEIP in the coming year.

Overview of the Clean Power Plan's Clean Energy Incentive Program

Map: Energy Efficiency under the Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards


NOTE: This map is based on the proposed Clean Power Plan, which factors in each state's energy efficiency potential in determining state-specific emission rates. The final rule does not include energy efficiency as a building block, though states are allowed to use energy efficiency to meet their clean power goals.

In its proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants (also called the Clean Power Plan), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes a unique 2030 target emissions rate for each state. This target is based on EPA projections of how each state could leverage a variety of carbon-cutting measures, including customer energy efficiency.

Through energy efficiency programs, states can drive down their total consumption, including consumption of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions, bringing states closer to their emission rate target. EPA projects that each state is capable of eventually reducing electricity demand by 1.5 percent each year, in line with the rate leading states have achieved. States are projected to meet this figure in varying years, taking into account how advanced each state was in 2012. This 1.5 percent projection is incremental, meaning EPA expects an additional 1.5 percent savings each year, for a much larger cumulative savings by 2030. Projections for states that currently reduce demand by less than 1.5 percent per year are designed in a way that allow a ramp-up period before reaching this level, but EPA has determined that all states have the capacity to meet this projection by 2025 at the latest. Note that under the proposal, states are not obligated to meet EPA's efficiency projections in demonstrating compliance; provided the ultimate target emission rate is met, states could use any combination of measures they see fit.

The map above shows each state's 2012 incremental efficiency savings as a percentage of the 1.5 percent projection. States colored with a darker shade of blue are closer to meeting this projection. Two states, Arizona and Maine, reported savings above 1.5 percent in 2012.

Zoom in and click on a state to see:

  • What incremental percentage of its electricity demand was reduced in 2012 through efficiency programs
  • How its current incremental savings rate compares to EPA's 1.5 percent annual projection
  • Whether the state has an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard in place, including:
    • A Mandatory Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, through which electric utilities must meet certain demand reduction targets (21 states)
    • A Voluntary Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, through which electric utilities are encouraged to meet certain demand reduction targets (4 states)
    • A Renewable Portfolio Standard that includes efficiency as qualifying generation (2 states)
    • An Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard that includes efficiency as qualifying generation (1 state)
    • A Renewable Portfolio Goal that includes efficiency as qualifying generation (4 states)
    • No Energy Efficiency law (17 states)

More information: C2ES Carbon Pollution Standards Resource Page


D.C. and Vermont are not included because they are not covered by the proposed Clean Power Plan

Source: EPA Clean Power Plan Technical Support Document: GHG Abatement Measures, Table 5-4: 2012 Reported Electricity Savings by State

The Clean Power Plan and Market Options for Compliance

The Clean Power Plan and
Market Options for Compliance

September 2015

Download the Fact Sheet (PDF)

Over the next year, states will be working with stakeholders to submit plans to implement the new federal Clean Power Plan and submit comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed federal implementation plan and model rules. In its final Clean Power Plan, EPA has shown strong support for market-based approaches to reduce emissions and has granted states significant flexibility to implement market options. This document provides an overview of the Clean Power Plan and highlights aspects of the rule that warrant close attention from a market readiness perspective.


There's growing business momentum for climate action

Can you feel the momentum?

With negotiators meeting in Bonn this week and only six weeks to go until Paris, the business community is not only stepping up to the plate, but is swinging for the fences on its support climate action (Yes, it’s playoff season, so baseball is also on my mind).

This week’s announcement that 69 companies have joined the White House’s American Business Act on Climate Pledge brings the total to 81. Many of these companies pledging to reduce their emissions, take other actions to tackle climate change and support a strong international agreement include a number of members of our own Business Environmental Leadership Council: Alcoa, Bank of America, GE, General Motors, HP, IBM, Intel and PG&E. Together the 81 companies represent a combined $3 trillion in revenue and 9 million employees.

And last week, 14 companies with a combined revenue of $1.1 trillion and 1.5 million employees signed a statement organized by C2ES in support of a Paris climate agreement, that began “Paris presents a critical opportunity to strengthen efforts globally addressing the causes and consequences of climate change, and to demonstrate action by businesses and other non-state actors. ”

But these companies aren’t just talking about climate change; they’re doing something about it. They’re making commitments to reduce their own emissions, and some are even committing to use 100% renewable energy through the RE100 campaign.  They are also working both internally and with communities and cities to increase climate resilience.

Now it’s time to take this enthusiasm and put it to work. We know there is growing support for a strong agreement in Paris, and hopefully that’s what we’ll get in December.  But that’s just the first step—we’ll need to ensure that countries live up to their commitments, and back here in the United States, we’ll be working with businesses, states, and cities to build partnerships that harness the power of the markets to reduce emissions, develop innovative financing for clean energy and strengthen our resilience to climate impacts.

We have some real momentum going now. Let’s make the most of it.

New commitments to reduce HFCs show leadership

The fastest growing family of greenhouse gases – extremely potent hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) -- aren’t going to be growing as fast in the future.

Today’s White House announcement of voluntary industry commitments to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), along with new regulations put in place over the past year, have created game-changing shifts toward more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Developed as substitutes for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the late 1980s, HFCs have become widely used worldwide in refrigerators, air conditioners, foam products, and aerosols. While they don’t contribute to ozone depletion, HFCs can trap 1,000 times or more heat in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide. This means they have a high global warming potential (GWP).

The amount of these compounds produced around the world has been growing at a rate of more than 10 percent per year. Unless controlled, emissions of HFCs could nearly triple in the U.S. by 2030. Strong international action to reduce HFCs could reduce temperature increases by 0.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, a critical contribution to global efforts to limit climate change.

The 16 voluntary industry commitments that make up today’s announcement highlight the innovation and leadership U.S. industry is showing in meeting the challenges of addressing climate change. These actions build on 22 commitments made by industry at a White House event just a year ago.

Progress in developing alternatives has been dramatic and is likely to accelerate even more over the next few years. For example:

  • Coca Cola has installed 1.5 million HFC-free cooler units in its global network.
  • Dow Chemical is shifting several of its foam lines to low-GWP alternatives.
  • Mission Pharmacal introduced the first zinc oxide aerosol product using a new low-GWP alternative.
  • Goodman Global Inc. will soon be introducing the first package terminal air-conditioning unit that relies on a low-GWP coolant.
  • Both Chemours (formerly DuPont) and Honeywell have commissioned a number of new plants to ensure adequate quantities of alternatives with lower global warming potential are available to companies worldwide.

As a critical complement to these voluntary industry actions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a series of new rules over the past year under its Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP). These rules both expanded the range of acceptable low-GWP alternatives and limited the use of high-GWP HFCs where more environmentally friendly alternatives are available.

Today’s announcement also includes a new proposed rule that would extend refrigerant managing practices (e.g., recycling) now required for ozone-depleting substances to HFCs.

Together, these voluntary and regulatory actions demonstrate both the importance of acting and the feasibility of shifting to alternatives. They also help the United States make a strong case to the international community as nations gather the first week in November to discuss phasing down HFCs globally.

Clean Power Plan Timeline

Clean Power Plan Timeline

September 2015

Download the Timeline (PDF)

The Clean Power Plan provides guidelines for the development, submittal, and implementation of state plans. States can submit their plans or request a two-year extension by September 6, 2016. States must submit nal complete plans by September 6, 2018.

While the compliance period for the rule starts in 2022, states can opt to participate in the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP). CEIP seeks to reward early investments in renewable energy and energy efciency measures that generate carbon-free electricity or reduce end-use energy demand during 2020 and/or 2021.

The performance rates are phased in over the 2022–2029 interim period, which leads to a “step down” reduction path. States may elect to set their own goals for the three interim periods as long as they meet their interim and nal goals. States must also demonstrate they have met their interim goal, on average, over the eight-year interim period.

Starting in July 2032 and every two years afterwards, states are required to demonstrate how they met the nal goal.


Bob Perciasepe's statement on the U.S.-China joint statement on climate change

Statement of Bob Perciasepe
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

September 25, 2015

On today's U.S.-China joint statement on climate change:

The United States and China today advanced the global climate effort on two fronts – by committing to strengthen their national efforts to curb emissions, and by breaking ground on key elements of a new global accord.

In setting a start date for its national emissions trading system, China sends a powerful signal that market-based strategies will play a critical role in the transition to a low-carbon future. In the U.S., states have the opportunity to employ similar cost-effective approaches to cut emissions from power plants under the new Clean Power Plan.

Beyond their respective national efforts, the two leaders helped pave the way for a meaningful agreement in Paris by offering a shared vision for moving beyond the historic developed-developing country divide.

These new understandings can help deliver an agreement that ensures accountability and works to build ambition over time. And by committing $3 billion to help other developing countries, China is assuming shared responsibility for mobilizing critical climate finance.

Many issues remain and the United States and China cannot achieve a global accord alone. But the growing alignment of the world’s two largest economies and emitters bodes well for a successful outcome in Paris.


Contact: Laura Rehrmann, rehrmannl@c2es.org or 703-516-0621

About C2ES: The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization promoting strong policy and action to address our climate and energy challenges. Learn more at www.c2es.org.

How states can best promote clean power

The federal Clean Power Plan gives each state the flexibility to use its own ideas on how best to reduce greenhouse gases from the power sector. One proven, cost-effective approach is to use market forces to drive innovation and efficiency.

It worked before to curb acid rain. It’s working now in California and the nine states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. And it can work again with the Clean Power Plan.

The options available to states go beyond creating or joining a cap-and-trade program or instituting a carbon tax. Pieces can be put in place, such as common definitions, measurement and verification processes, so that states or companies could be in a position to trade within their state or across borders. Modest programs that allow companies to trade carbon credits could be explored.

In an op-ed published in The Hill, Anthony Earley, CEO of California energy company PG&E, and C2ES President Bob Perciasepe urge states to give these options serious thought.


Read The Hill op-ed.

Q&A: EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants

Q&A: EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Power Plants

On August 3, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants, known as the Clean Power Plan.

Adopted pursuant to EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Power Plan establishes unique emission rate goals and mass equivalents for each state. It is projected to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Individual state targets are based on national uniform “emission performance rate” standards (pounds of CO2 per MWh) and each state’s unique generation mix. See more resources and maps at the C2ES Carbon Pollution Standards Resource Page.


Compliance Options


Next Steps


Q: Why is EPA regulating carbon dioxide?

Under the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, greenhouse gases meet the definition of air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, meaning they must be regulated if they could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA made this determination in 2009. In June 2013, President Obama directed EPA to work closely with states, power plant operators, and other stakeholders in developing carbon standards for existing power plants, and to finalize the standards by June 2015. EPA released its proposed rule in June 2014 and the final rule in August 2015.

Q: Why do we need to regulate power sector carbon emissions?

The power sector is the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions, which are contributing to global climate change.

Many businesses, cities and states are cutting emissions, increasing renewable energy, and improving energy efficiency. In addition, newly abundant natural gas has begun to displace coal (which emits twice as much carbon) in the U.S. electrical generation mix.  But in the absence of major new policies, U.S. emissions are projected to rise as the economy grows, and as natural gas prices rise. Stronger policies are needed to increase energy efficiency, thereby reducing electricity consumption, and to expand the use of low- and no-carbon energy sources. Under a business-as-usual forecast, fossil fuels are projected to provide 66 percent of the U.S. fuel mix in 2030 compared with 60 percent under the Clean Power Plan, with most of the reduction coming from higher-emitting coal plants. Therefore, under a business-as-usual scenario, carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector are expected to increase around 6.5 percent (from 2014 levels) to 2,177 million metric tons in 2030, while under the Clean Power Plan carbon dioxide emissions would fall more than 19 percent (from 2014 levels) to 1,644 million metric tons in 2030.

Figure 1: U.S. CO2 Emissions

Figure 2: Projected Electric Power Sector Carbon Dioxide Emissions under Business-as-Usual Scenario

Q: What is in EPA’s Clean Power Plan?

Typically, under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets standards and states implement them.  The Clean Power Plan:

  • Sets unique emission rates goals and mass equivalents for each state, reflecting the variation in their electricity generation mixes, to be met starting in 2022;
  • Provides states significant flexibility in choosing how to meet their targets;
  • Provides incentives for early deployment of renewables and efficiency measures benefiting low-income communities;
  • Provides tools to assist states choosing to implement market-based approaches; and
  • Contains a Federal Implementation Plan that EPA would use in states that do not accept adequate implementation plans.

EPA set interim and 2030 targets for each state based on uniform emission performance rates (application of BSER) and its unique generation mix.

Q: How was each state’s target calculated?

Uniform, national emission performance rates for affected power plants are based on the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER), using three “building blocks” or potential pathways applied regionally to reduce CO2 emissions:

  1. Make affected fossil fuel power plants more efficient;
  2. Increase generation from lower-emitting natural gas combined cycle plants; and
  3. Increase generation from new zero-emitting renewable power sources.

See a map of state targets for a more detailed explanation.

Q: What are the big differences between the proposed and final plans?

States will have more time to submit their implementation plans (they can get extensions to 2018) and two more years (until 2022) to begin phasing in pollution cuts. C2ES and others encouraged allowing states more time so they could take a longer view on planning and investment.

The final plan also proposes a voluntary Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) to encourage early installation of renewable energy projects and energy efficiency programs for low-income communities before the 2022 compliance start date. EPA has invited comments on the CEIP and will address design and implementation details in a future action.

Market-based mechanisms are more explicitly encouraged in the final rule. The proposed federal implementation plan includes an option for states to join an interstate cap-and-trade program. It also outlines how states could participate in emissions credit trading without the creation of interstate compacts.

In calculating individual state targets, EPA had proposed taking into account each states’ energy efficiency potential, but it chose not to do so in the final rules. However, like the proposal, the final plan allows states to use energy efficiency programs for compliance.

EPA also changed its methodology for determining incremental renewable energy to better reflect regional technical potential, rather than state-level renewables policies, as in the proposal.

Unlike in the proposed plan, states with nuclear power plants under construction – Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee – will be able to count this generation toward compliance instead of having it factored into their targets.

The final rule also takes the interstate nature of the electric system into greater consideration. The proposal calculated state targets by applying building blocks to each state. The final rule uses the characteristics and potential of electric grid interconnections (Eastern, Western and Texas) to determine emission performance rates for units, which are then applied to each state’s unique generation mix to calculate a target.

Back to top.

Compliance Options

Q: How can states reduce power sector carbon emissions?

States have wide latitude in designing their strategies to reduce emissions. In most cases, they will rely on a variety of measures. Major options include substituting natural gas for coal; improving energy efficiency; and increasing reliance on renewable energy.

States can implement the Clean Power Plan individually or in cooperation with other states. They also can employ market-based mechanisms, such as averaging or trading, to help power companies identify least-cost emission reductions.

Examples of steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector are illustrated in Figure 3 and Table 1.

Figure 3: Opportunities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector

Table 1: Policy options to reduce power sector carbon dioxide emissions

Power plant performance standardEach power plant must achieve a set emissions intensityCalifornia, New York, Washington
Renewable Portfolio StandardUtilities must deliver a set percentage of renewable electricityColorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, Rhode Island, and others
Energy Efficiency Resource StandardUtilities must cut demand by a set amount by target yearsArizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas, and others
DecouplingReduce utility incentive to deliver more electricity by decoupling revenue and profitCalifornia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and others
Net MeteringEncourage residential solar by paying homeowners to put excess electricity back on gridArkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, and others
Cap & TradeIssue a declining number of carbon allowances, which must be surrendered in proportion to each plant’s emissionsCalifornia, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Carbon TaxCharge a tax for emitting carbonBritish Columbia
Grid Operator Carbon FeeAdd a carbon price to grid operator decision over which power plants to runNone currently
Appliance Efficiency StandardsRequire new appliances sold to meet set electricity consumption standardsCalifornia, Florida, New Jersey, and others
Commercial & Residential Building CodesRequire new buildings to include electricity saving measuresCalifornia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and others


Q: How could states use market-based approaches to implement the plan?

Economists consider market-based approaches to be the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Clean Power Plan encourages states to consider using market mechanisms, which could include a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax, or tradable renewables or efficiency certificates.

EPA intends to set up and administer a program to track trading programs for states that choose to use them. In addition, the Federal Implementation Plan that EPA would employ in states without adequate plans includes market-based programs, which can be used by states as a model for their own plans.

Under EPA’s proposed new Clean Energy Incentive Program, states that act early to cut carbon pollution, either with renewables or energy efficiency, would be rewarded with emission reduction credits (ERCs), which they could use to meet their targets or sell to other emitters.

Q: How can states work together to implement the Clean Power Plan?

States have long collaborated to achieve energy and environmental goals. The successful trading program to reduce sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, is an example.

The plan is designed to facilitate interstate compliance strategies, including different forms of trading. The federal implementation plan outlines strategies to determine the equivalence of emission reduction credits in different states. It would also create a national platform that can be used to track the buying, selling, and trading of credits across state lines.

An example of states already working together is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast. A multi-state approach could also be accomplished through another existing authority such as a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) or Independent System Operator (ISO).

Q: Will states be able to use Canadian hydropower to comply?

Renewable energy from outside of the United States, including Canadian hydropower, can be used for compliance purposes, provided it is incremental and installed after 2012 and meets some other conditions. More than a dozen U.S. states already import a significant amount of Canadian hydropower. According to a C2ES report, importing hydropower from even a modestly sized new Canadian project (250 MW) could help a state bridge the gap between its current carbon emissions rate and its 2030 target.

Back to top.


Q: Will the Clean Power Plan affect the reliability of the electric grid?

In response to concerns raised by EPA’s proposed rule, the final plan includes a “reliability safety valve” temporarily relaxing emission standards on individual electric generating units under extraordinary circumstances where electric system reliability is concerned.

To mitigate reliability issues, states are required to address reliability in their compliance plans. Importantly, the plan gives states up to seven years before interim targets must be met, providing time for state regulators and reliability entities to work with utilities and other key stakeholders.

The plan is also expected to encourage energy efficiency, which helps lower demand growth and improve reliability.

Q: How much will implementing the plan cost?

EPA calculates that savings from increased energy efficiency will outweigh the costs of implementing the plan, reducing household electric bills by about $7 per month by 2030.  The agency estimates compliance costs of $5.1 billion to $8.4 billion and total benefits of $34 billion to $54 billion.

Q: How does the plan address nuclear power?

Nuclear provides nearly 20 percent of the nation’s power and is the largest source of carbon-free baseload electricity. Five reactors are now under construction in Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina and are expected to be online by 2030.

Unlike the proposal, the final rule does not consider existing or new nuclear power for the purposes of setting state targets. Therefore, the five reactors under construction and any new units or upgrades can count toward compliance.

Q: How is natural gas treated in the plan?

Both the proposal and the final plan envision about a third of U.S. electricity coming from natural gas in 2030. However, under the final plan, less new natural gas generation capacity is anticipated.

Natural gas demand was expected to grow more quickly under the earlier compliance date called for in the proposed rule. Proposed incentives for early deployment of renewables may encourage more investment in renewable energy in the short term.

Q: What does this plan mean for coal?

Demand for coal in the U.S. has been decreasing for many years because of the availability of relatively less expensive natural gas to meet baseload power demands and because of other environmental and safety regulations. Even before the Clean Power Plan, very few new coal plants were expected to be constructed. According to EPA’s IPM modeling of the final rule, coal is expected to make up 27 to 28 percent of the electric generation mix in 2030. Under a business-as-usual scenario, coal is expected to deliver 36 percent of U.S. electricity in 2030.

Figure 4: Distribution of Fossil Fuel Power Plants across the Contiguous United States

Back to top.

Next Steps

Q: What is the timetable for implementing the plan?

States have one year to either submit a plan or request an extension. All final plans are due by September 2018. EPA will approve or disapprove a final plan within a year.

The Clean Energy Incentive Program begins on January 1, 2020. States that have expressed their interest in participating in this program in their final plans are eligible. This program runs throughout 2020 and 2021.

On January 1, 2022, states must begin complying by meeting their interim targets. On January 30, 2030, states must meet their final CO2 reduction goals.

Q: Won’t this end up in the courts?

A number of states have already brought legal actions challenging the rule (some of these states are simultaneously working on their implementation plans).

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act – the section under which the Clean Power Plan was adopted – has not been used often in the past, so EPA has few precedents to rely on. However, the courts historically have granted EPA a fair amount of discretion in implementing the act, and some of the changes made in the final plan will make it better able to withstand legal challenge. 

Q: What happens to states that fail to comply?

States now have up to three years to write implementation plans, applying their knowledge of their utilities and the programs that have worked in the past.

Under the Clean Air Act, any state that fails to submit a plan or get EPA approval for its plan will be subject to a federal implementation plan. The current proposals for the federal implementation plan would use flexible, market-based solutions for compliance.

Back to top.





Carbon Pollution Standards

Carbon Pollution Standards

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final rules in August 2015 to limit carbon pollution from existing and new power plants. Electric power generation accounts for 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, making it the largest source. 

Reducing power sector emissions is a key part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which aims to reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. In addition, the U.S. contribution to the upcoming international climate agreement in Paris sets an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Under the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants, each state has its own target (due to regional variation in generation mix and electricity consumption). Overall, the rule is designed to cut emissions 32 percent from 2005 emission levels by 2030.

EPA's “Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants” finalizes a standard first proposed in March 2012 that was modified and proposed again in September 2013. States would apply the standards for new coal- and natural gas-fired plants (measured as tons of greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt-hour of elec­tricity produced) at each regulated plant.

Explore the issues and options involved in reducing carbon pollution from power plants through the following resources:

C2ES Resources

Additional Resources


Syndicate content