The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County reorients NEPA’s scope, curtailing cumulative effects analysis by redefining it through a jurisdictional lens. For fossil fuel infrastructure projects where the most significant environmental impacts occur upstream or downstream from the infrastructure itself, Seven County severely constrains climate change-related impact analysis. This Comment advances three linked claims: (1) that Seven County replaces NEPA’s foreseeability-based “hard look” with a jurisdictional screen; (2) that this substitution erodes cumulative effects analysis as required by NEPA and historically implemented by CEQ; and (3) that the doctrine is outcome-determinative for fossil fuel infrastructure where consequential effects occur outside the permitting agency’s organic authority.