I don't want to disagree with what I said in the op-ed. I'll try to remember.
Really, it goes to the two powers. In terms of the criminal law power, which is the basis of most federal climate regulation, the court didn't deal with that power at all. In fact, it reiterated 30 years of constitutional jurisprudence, underscoring the fact the federal government has broad authority over the environment, particularly over cross-border matters. That was the purpose of that op-ed: to say the foundation of federal authority over climate, and the environment in general, is still strong.
However, as I said, the Supreme Court two years ago reiterated and upheld the federal carbon pricing law and specifically said the federal government has authority over serious pollution problems that cross borders. Really, all the court said in this act was that you've defined cross-border environmental pollution too broadly. You can't deal with just minimal problems or problems that are primarily local in nature. You have to deal with, as the court said, examples of pollution that are serious issues and have serious cross-border impacts. That's what they've done for water. They just haven't done it for air pollution or climate change, which is surprising.