The EPA’s new climate change plan garnered a lot of press recently, the 30 percent carbon reduction by 2030 leading all discussions.

The EPA will have just over 15 years to implement this plan, which will face considerable opposition from Congress and potentially future presidents. Obama has looked to the EPA to take up the fight for greenhouse gas reduction, given that any legislative action is now close to impossible due to the lengthy Republican control of the House. Republicans have controlled the house 16 of the last 19 years.

But really how ambitious is the plan? It’s certainly something, but the devil is in the details.

For starters the reductions are based on 30 percent from 2005 levels. CO2 emissions from power plants have been on a decline since 2007, down about 15 percent. U.S. utilities are effectively already halfway to meeting the 2030 goal. Business Week’s Matthew Philips, who scrutinized the plan in a couple of articles, noted “The EPA did the power industry a huge favor.” If the EPA had used 2012 as the baseline for a 30 percent reduction, an additional 267 million metric tons of CO2 would have been eliminated.

Additionally, while the national target is a 30 percent reduction, implementation is state by state with each state having different targets. States that already have a strong track record of cutting emissions have more ambitious targets while others like Kentucky have much lower targets because they’ve proven that they’ve been less willing to take action.

Philips writes, “Looked at one way, the EPA is encouraging states that have already gotten a jump on pollution to get even cleaner. Looked at another way, the government is punishing states that have cut emissions the most while letting those that haven’t off easy.”

Perhaps more importantly is that the EPA is employing a formula to measure the ratio of emissions to power generated. This obviously means that if you increase overall power generation, your emissions can also increase and still maintain a stable ratio. On the bright side, a quick way to reduce the ratio is to replace current carbon emitting power generation or add renewable generation to the grid. Energy efficiency measures or relatively cleaner power plants like natural gas replacing coal will also lower the numerator in the ratio.

This is why natural gas markets reacted positively to the plan. Ben Smith, president of energy data for First Enercast Financial noted to Marketwatch, that “There was just too much risk to invest million on upgrading aging coal plants when the policy was unknown,” adding that the policy announcement “Only reinforces what has already been happening. Coal and CO2 emissions have been in decline for several years now…picking up the slack is renewables and natural gas.” Total coal consumption is slated to decline another 3 percent next year with renewable generation growing by 4 percent according to the EIA. Coal comprised 39 percent of generation in 2013 with natural gas making up another 27 percent.

And while some may feel like the EPA’s plan doesn’t go far enough, other critics are wondering whether the plan’s primary effect will be a further acceleration of the retirement of coal and replacement with natural gas. Natural gas prices have been steadily rising and the EPA’s plan will put more upward pressure on prices over the next decade, which combined with the likely exporting of natural gas globally has U.S. manufacturers unhappy. This scenario will mean higher power costs for them at a time when the U.S. is experiencing a revitalization of its manufacturing sector, which has been partially driven by cheap power.

So where does this leave renewables? In a pretty good spot actually. As forward pressure on natural gas sends electricity prices incrementally higher, solar and wind just keep getting more attractive. And if battery storage prices come down progressively, we could have a strong argument for solar and wind picking up the slack.

As with any GHG reduction plan, you never get everything you want. But it might just be enough to move along the transition to renewables. Because “move along” is pretty much all Obama can do right now.