The Bush administration's national energy strategy will ask for legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, encourage the use of nuclear power, restructure the nation's electric utility industry and require business vehicle fleets to use fuels other than gasoline.

But at least four sections of the proposed bill that would have created incentives for energy conservation were deleted -- crossed out by hand -- by the Office of Management and Budget before OMB circulated it to Cabinet departments for final comment yesterday.

In apparent confirmation of environmentalists' fears that free-market advocates in the White House would oppose such measures, OMB cut out sections of the proposed law that would have set federal efficiency standards for electric lights, granted tax credits for electricity generated by renewable fuels, exempted energy efficiency rebates from income tax and created a self-financing federal fund to make loans for efficiency projects.

As expected, other conservation-promoting "options" that were drafted by the Energy Department over the past 18 months were rejected by the White House even before the bill was written. Among these were proposals to require greater auto mileage efficiency, increase energy taxes to discourage consumption and require employers to charge their workers for parking.

Some sections of the bill are similar to measures introduced in the past week by key members of the Senate and House energy committees. Together, the three legislative packages are expected to define the terms of a heated debate this year over energy and conservation policies.

Congressional sources said there is no chance that any of the three packages will be adopted intact. Instead, as happened last year with the Clean Air Act, they are likely to be negotiated, amended, lobbied and traded back and forth, or perhaps broken up into separate bills, in bruising infighting.

Circulating with the proposed bill yesterday was the draft of the letter of transmittal that Energy Secretary James D. Watkins will send to Congress with it. The letter is undated because the schedule for sending the package to Capitol Hill is not final, but White House and congressional officials have said it will happen before the end of the month.

As the administration developed its energy strategy in 18 months of public hearings, furious lobbying by industry and environmental groups and arguments between the Energy Department and the White House, "four basic themes became evident," the letter says.

The four are increasing energy efficiency, securing future energy supplies, respecting the environment "while pursuing the first two goals," and improving technology through research and science education, according to the letter. A fifth theme, not mentioned by Watkins but often cited by Energy Department and White House officials, was that these goals were to be reached without deviating from the administration's free-market, anti-tax philosophy.

That philosophy accounts for the last-minute deletion of the conservation measures, administration officials said. The main thrust of the proposed legislation is to increase the production of energy through such measures as partial deregulation of interstate oil and gas pipelines and deregulation of imported natural gas, rather than to require energy savings.

Watkins's letter says that "to protect environmental quality, we need to use market mechanisms, reinforced by other {energy strategy} recommendations, such as minimizing waste generation; increasing energy efficiency; increasing use of natural gas, renewable energy sources, alternative transportation fuels and clean coal technologies; and improving the facility siting process."

It calls for reliance on voluntary efforts to tighten building efficiency standards, get gas-guzzling old cars off the road and reduce energy consumption in public housing. Energy Department staff members had proposed federal actions to achieve those goals, but the draft legislation omitted them.

"I think the conservation parts are abysmal," said James Wolf, president of the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy. He predicted that "the public is going to send this package back" because it emphasizes production over conservation. He said the objections of White House officials to relatively noncontroversial proposals such as efficiency standards for electric lights result from "theology" about the free market, not from sound analysis.

An Energy Department spokeswoman said the department would have no comment on the proposals that emerged from OMB. In private, senior Energy Department officials have made no secret of their discomfort at seeing so much of their work on efficiency and conservation rejected by the White House, but they have been ordered to keep their feelings to themselves.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) and panel member Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) have already introduced bills that would open the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge to oil exploration. With administration support, the measure may pass in the Senate, but it is headed for rough sailing in the House, where environmentalist members are firmly opposed.

They argue that even the highest estimates of the amount of oil that could be found there -- about 30 billion barrels -- do not justify the potential damage to the region's delicate ecology. The United States consumes about 17 million barrels of oil a day, nearly half of it imported.

The administration plan would direct the Interior Department to allow drilling only if it "will result in no significant adverse effect on fish or wildlife, their habitat and the environment."

A tax of 5 cents a barrel would be levied to create a $50 million "reclamation fund" to be used to repair any environmental damage.

The alternative fuel proposal goes far beyond the alterative fuel provisions of last year's Clean Air Act. Beginning in 1995, it would require that when owners of fleets of vehicles such as delivery vans and taxis add to their fleets, at least 10 percent be vehicles powered by natural gas, electricity or alcohol fuels. By 2000, 90 percent of such purchases would have to be alternative-fuel vehicles.

Fleets of 10 or more vehicles would be affected in the metropolitan areas with the worst air pollution problems. Fleets of 20 or more would be affected in all cities. City buses would be covered, but not rental cars.

The administration's proposal to restructure the electric utility industry is similar to Johnston's. It would amend the Depression-era Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which prohibits most utilities from expanding across state lines and limits the opportunities for non-utility corporations from competing with utilities to generate electricty.

Supporters of change believe that expanding competition would encourage conservation and efficiency because electricity consumers would have a choice of suppliers. Opponents believe it would let utilities use their protected markets to expand at the expense of consumers.

The administration bill would allow builders of nuclear power plants to obtain their construction and operating licenses in the same proceeding, eliminating the risk of costly delays after a plant has been built. A similar measure failed by one vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee last year.