In the new political environment on Capitol Hill, the outlook is bleak for a deal on air pollution from power plants -- even if it doesn't address greenhouse gases, key players in the negotiations say.

For about a decade now, a rotating congressional cast has been negotiating bills that would require reductions from the utility sector in sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and mercury. Some have suggested that a so-called three-pollutant bill could fare better this session now that cap and trade is off the agenda, but key staffers already appear to be writing it off for the next two years.

Last Congress, the discussions centered on a bill from Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that would have effectively replaced U.S. EPA's upcoming limits on SO2, NOx and mercury. The negotiations included Carper, Alexander and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), as well as Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who retired at the end of his term last year.

The talks hit a snag toward the end of last session. But if the goal is reducing emissions from power plants, Inhofe still believes that a three-pollutant bill is the "best way to go," said Michael Catanzaro, deputy staff director for Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans.

But Catanzaro added that while negotiations are set to continue in the new Congress, the mounting criticism of federal regulations on Capitol Hill and the disdain for dense bills among the new House Republican leadership mean there is little room for the measure to advance in the next two years.

"A big package isn't going to move in the House, so I don't have a lot of optimism at all about the energy pieces you're talking about," Catanzaro said at a Bipartisan Policy Center conference on regulations for the power sector. "With respect to 3-p, it's a very long process. It's not going to pass in this Congress, but you need to start laying the groundwork."

The legislation has tentative support from both sides of the aisle. The negotiators on the Democratic side want to set stricter air pollution limits than the Clean Air Act requires, while Republicans want to lengthen the compliance deadlines for utilities and give them a set of rules that would be locked in place for 10 or 15 years.

But last year, the discussions were tied up by disagreements on toxic pollution limits and the length of time that U.S. EPA would be barred from setting stricter rules for the power sector, Catanzaro said.

And now that the balance of power has shifted toward Republicans, the legislation could also lose the backing of environmentalists -- a major constituency for the Democrats. Environmental and public health groups have had mixed feelings about the idea of a three-pollutant bill, worrying that it could be slower or less protective than rules issued by EPA under the Clean Air Act.

David Hawkins, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he would be wary of an air pollution bill that would pass muster with the Republicans in the House.

"The noises that are coming out of the new committee chairs and the noises that are coming out of the leadership do not indicate a desire to get this burden of pollution addressed quickly," he said. "It just doesn't seem to be a realistic prospect to say that the environmental community should support some effort to develop comprehensive legislation in that environment."

Maryam Brown, chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said the new Republican leadership will be wary of omnibus bills and comprehensive legislation. The focus will be on reviewing and possibly blocking regulations from EPA and other agencies, she said.

But a three-pollutant bill could be crafted in a way that would be popular with utilities, said Jeff Holmstead, who led EPA's air office under President George W. Bush. Compared to command-and-control regulations, it would achieve more reductions at a lower price, he said.

"I think that opportunity is still out there, and, by the way, I think there are at least some people in the industry who would be happy enough to add CO2 if that would give them more regulatory certainty," Holmstead said. "There's a little more debate and discussion over that one, but there is, undoubtedly, a better way to regulate this industry."