While I disagree that the EPA has any Constitutional mandate - if Congressional law sets them up as an arbiter of interstate commerce between states such that regulation is in place that obviates the need for a State to sue a private concern producing energy in a different state.
It does buy into the EPA having a legitimate function - but that is the domain of Congress and they seem quite willing to legislate oversight/control of their powers to the Executive branches.
It also seems to buy into the idea that there is a legitimate “harm” that can be shown from release of greenhouse gas when it hasn't been shown that temperatures are actually increasing (hide the decline) OR that increasing temperatures harmed anyone (Medieval warm period).
But yes: although the journalistic slant was pro EPA and Ginsburg - the decision arrived at stopped liberal idiot litigation aimed at taxing/fining energy production in different states.
This is an interstate commerce concern in my mind: an ACTUAL one - not a hypothetical - it could be - a crop grown and consumed in one state has a tangential effect on the price of the crop that IS involved in interstate commerce - and thus is subject to federal legislation, etc.
Keeping in mind that this article consists of speculaton as to outcome, based on questions, comments, and, one presumes, facial expressions of some of the SC Justices during oral arguments, there is a real existential danger here —
Depending on how the order of dismissal is worded, it is possible that the precedent, or even principle, may be set that all courts (representing Due Process and The Rule of Law) must defer to the EPA (unelected, unaccountable, arbitrary, Bureaucracy) in all matters environmental - no matter how vaguely related....