The headline is a bit of a mischaracterization. The Court ruled the EPA did not have the authority it claimed to have, a different situation from reining in an existing authority, and that the EPA could not simply adopt the Affordable Clean Energy rule, that the agency had exceeded its mandate under the Clean Air Act with the proposal and that if Congress wanted the outcome of the Rule under CAA it would have to legislate same rather than have the administrative state simply write rules.
However, as the Washington Post quoted a proponent of the EPA's action:
Richard Lazarus, a Harvard environmental law professor, said in a statement that by insisting that an agency “can promulgate an important and significant climate rule only by showing ‘clear congressional authorization’ at a time when the Court knows that Congress is effectively dysfunctional, the Court threatens to upend the national government’s ability to safeguard the public health and welfare at the very moment when the United States, and all nations, are facing our greatest environmental challenge of all: climate change.”
It is not the Court's place to solve the problem of Congress being dysfunctional.
From Energy & Environment News' Greenwire, June 30:
The Supreme Court ruled today that EPA is prohibited from broadly regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, the most significant climate case in a decade, delivers a blow to President Joe Biden’s efforts to tackle planet-warming emissions and make electricity generation carbon-free by 2035.
A coalition of Republican-led states and coal companies, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, had petitioned the justices to reverse a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that struck down the narrowly tailored Trump-era Affordable Clean Energy rule, which gutted the Obama administration’s more expansive Clean Power Plan....
....MUCH MORE
In the meantime here is the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy Rule page.
