In June of this year, the House of Representatives passed a climate bill that would regulate greenhouse gases through cap-and-trade legislation. Unfortunately, many in the Senate have not embraced this bill with the necessary confidence and valor.

Senators from energy and mineral extracting states such as North Dakota believe that the bill's implications will negatively affect the economy. Their opposition has remained vigilant and their call of attention to the bill's narrow passage in the House supports their hope that it will fail in the Senate.

The Senators who are dedicated to supporting environmental regulations are hopeful and confident that the bill will produce positive results. Both sides have remained set in their ways which has brought the governing body to a tentative standstill.

Fortunately for environmental supporters, the Environmental Protection Agency remains unphased by this Congressional battle as they continue with proposals aimed at decreasing the level of domestic greenhouse emissions.

The most recent proposal, announced last Wednesday, requires the installation of the best available technologies as well as the improvement of overall facilities in power plants, refineries, and factories that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year.

The agency's rights to propose these changes in regulation as a separate entity are rooted in the Clean Air Act of 1990, which defines the EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer.

As expected, those in the energy production industry calculated their losses due to this potential operation and have argued foul play.

Opposing forces have contended that Clean Air Act only covers the EPA regulation of facilities that release more than 250 tons a year of a recognized pollutant. By extending the number to 25,000, the EPA has been accused of extending their rights to force new facilities under this regulation.

Jeff Holmstead, a former top EPA air pollution official turned energy industry lobbyist denounced the agency, saying they are attempting to "fit a square peg into a round hole".

Senators who are opposed to both the bill and the EPA's proposal have already moved to block it, and it's the guess of many that these efforts will continue until a legislative decision is made.