i'm not exactly sure what the issue is, ethically, with posting this card from an email. i don't think that professors would make claims that they would not support publically in an email, although i do think that we should have asked professor simon if it was okay to post this email on a public forum.
myself, i feel that some level of clarification is needed, especially if we ask simon about the context of his book and he says something that is the exact opposite of the way that most debaters use this card. i doubt that simon intended the part about nuclear energy and the US code to be a large part of his book, and therefore did not devote a whole lot of time to explaining it.
@ chase - i don't really think that this card is much different from the china aff last year. the US code is confused - there is nothing defining "alternative energy" as a term of art, let alone "alternative energy incentives". the fact that simon (the card, not the email) says that the best definition is "alternative energy facilities" proves that the topic isn't really grounded in legal lit.