Building off of Tim's first read on Judge Jenkins' ruling-- another key point that readers should keep in mind is that not only does this case differ in important ways from pre-emption lawsuits and related matters; more objective analysis indicates that its outcome in no way lessens the legal and regulatory weight of Judge Sessions' ruling in Vermont last week:
The two decisions are not necessarily at odds. They collectively suggest that states may address climate change through their legislatures and executive branches but not through the courts.
Indeed, California and the states following its lead on GHG emissions standards have done just that, as Judge Sessions properly recognized and we've noted at greater length. While the industry may be, as a matter of spin (and a matter of deflecting the impact of its recent legal setbacks in Vermont and in Mass. v. EPA), placing Jenkins' decision on nuisance damages within the context of its overall argument that "global warming presents exceedingly complex policy issues that must be addressed at the national and international levels by Congress and the president," that's simply not the case.
Jenkins' determination that assigning relative blame and monetary damages for global warming's impact on the states, right or wrong, is nevertheless complementary to the states' ability (under the Clean Air Act) to adopt stricter emissions standards shepherded in by California. The spotlight rightly remains on the eighteen states that have adopted California's standards or are moving toward doing so, and on the EPA's long-delayed decision on whether to grant California the Clean Air Act waiver that would kick-start their enforcement.