The DATA show that the RGGI states will see a 44% rise in emissions, if their existing nuclear shuts off. It shows CO2 rising in MA, after Yankee shut down, and UCS I expect will do nothing to prevent Pilgrim from following. Places, like MA, are poised to become >60% reliant upon natural gas for electric generation. There's lots of things UCS ignores and economic data is something I'd argue they miss. "Science" should also betray their lack of policy focus.
Example, UCS may still support hydrogen vehicles. It was with mutual support between auto makers, oil co's and places like UCS that I believe the critical mass to obligate CA tax payers to $~200 million in H2 stations came. Sure, you can make H2 with renewable energy, and look at H2 in the vacuum that UCS did, but if they had just a bit more economic and policy chops maybe they'd have realized from where ~96% of that stuff was going to come. In my estimation, they weren't thinking about the break-even distance between the cost of natural gas and electricity when doing H2 the favors they did. You can make it both ways.
The closer you get to CO2, what's amazing to me is how people don't watch the data. There is a surprising amount of idealizing, group think, and other agenda getting in the way of effectively fighting AGW. Some are anti-nukes, some look at it with a jobs lens. Some are "pro-renewables, let the nukes close, now and we'll replace them". Well, some day maybe. Some are happy making energy more expensive, because it truthfully will lead to greater conservation. Not one of these always helps the AGW fight, and most do harm it in my opinion.
Sometimes I think policy would be so much more effective if real people were more active, and objective about it. Instead, when it comes to CO2, they're absent or they "sign-up" and don't make waves. In fairness, places like I think UCS, NRDC and foundations can also be limited by mandate not to have an objective response to a problem. It can get in the way of funding, bread and butter.