Oil Production Key Focus of Bush Energy Plan : Environment: The proposal calls for the exploitation of domestic sources--without new taxes. It is weak on conservation measures.

The Bush Administration on Wednesday unveiled a national energy strategy making increased domestic oil production the first weapon in a long-range quest for energy security and stability.

Projecting production increases of 3.8 million barrels a day over the next 20 years, the plan looks chiefly toward exploitation of offshore deposits on the outer continental shelf, intensive development on the north slope of Alaska and drilling in 1.5 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“Every American will benefit from the policies that we are laying out here today and, over the next two decades, this strategy will make us more energy efficient without new energy taxes,” President Bush said as he presented the long-awaited plan to energy company executives, congressional leaders and representatives of environmental groups.

The plan, produced after 18 months of hearings and closed-door intramural struggle, provoked a gusher of criticism from environmental groups, one of which labeled it an “energy tragedy.”

The groups, along with congressional Democrats, charged that the plan gave a cold shoulder to conservation and renewable energy sources in favor of a renewed commitment to coal and oil and an effort to resurrect the nuclear power industry.

“The proposal announced by President Bush today is not a national energy policy,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), acting chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.

“It is the tired wish list of the energy companies. The President’s proposal does not promise energy independence; it assures energy addiction,” Miller said. “It will not work, and it must not be approved.”

But Bush said that the 265-page plan, encompassing about 100 different initiatives, will benefit every American consumer at the same time it enhances national security.

Among the Administration’s recommendations is one for Congress to authorize leasing of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in Kern County, Calif., where the government now produces and sells oil and gas.

“Market-driven private companies,” the plan concludes, “will produce oil more aggressively, accelerate gas sales and lower overhead costs.”

“The proceeds from leasing,” it adds, “could be used to create a Defense Petroleum Inventory and to reduce the federal budget deficit.”

In addition to accelerating the exploitation of the Elk Hills reserves, the strategy calls for pressing development of California heavy oil, estimating that production could hit 100,000 barrels a day.

Many of the wells where heavy oil can be produced are shut because air quality restrictions do not permit the use of oil-fired equipment necessary to generate the steam required in heavy oil production. Under the new plan, the Administration will seek approval for a pipeline to take natural gas into the heavy oil fields as a substitute.

While pushing for increased domestic oil production, the plan also proposes a variety of steps to improve efficiency through eased government regulation and research and development.

Energy Secretary James D. Watkins, the principal figure in shaping the plan, predicted that the efficiency measures will mean that oil imports will be 3 million barrels a day less than they otherwise would be by the end of the century. The savings should reach 6 million barrels a day 15 years from now, and 7 million barrels within 20 years, he said.

Legislation to implement the plan is expected to be sent to Congress next week.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which already has before it a massive bill similar in some major aspects to the Administration strategy, will begin hearings on the Bush plan today.

The leasing of much of the country’s outer continental shelf already has been deferred by the President. Plans for development in the next five years off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico will be outlined today by the Interior Department.

Although congressional critics faulted the plan as much for what it left out as for what it included, the most conspicuous debate may center on the plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.

The 19-million acre refuge in Alaska’s extreme northeastern corner includes a 1.5-million acre coastal plain, where the Interior Department has estimated there is a 19% chance of finding at least one economically viable oil field.

In addition to the 1.5 million acres in the coastal plain of the refuge, the strategy proposes accelerated development of five major oil fields already discovered on Alaska’s north slope.

While it ignored calls for stiff measures, such as heavy taxes on gas-guzzling cars, higher fuel efficiency standards and massive production of vehicles using alternative fuels, the Administration opted for several lesser measures to diversify transportation fuels.

It proposes instead to accelerate government purchases of alternative fuel vehicles, to provide incentives to manufacturers to produce alternative fuel vehicles and to require the use of alternative fuels in fleet operations.

Looking to natural gas as increasingly crucial because of its abundance, the Administration will seek to increase its consumption by about 5% above current projections by the end of the century, principally easing regulations and making it easier and less expensive to construct natural gas pipelines.

It also returns to the 1970s’ idea of expanding the use of the nation’s huge coal reserves, specifically through promotion of clean coal technologies, speeding construction of coal slurry pipelines and encouraging increased coal exports.

As expected, the plan discloses Administration intentions to simplify the licensing process for new nuclear power plants, to support the development of new safe reactor designs and to press for solutions to nuclear waste disposal.

The reaction of the environmental community appeared to be universally negative.

“It is bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad economic policy and bad foreign policy,” said Daniel Lashof, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

His views were echoed by colleagues across the country.

At a Santa Monica press conference, representatives of Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the American Oceans Campaign charged that the strategy will only deepen American dependence on imported oil.

Veronica Kun, a defense council scientist, said that conservation and energy efficiency could save nine times the energy in proven oil reserves of the outer continental shelf and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But supporters said that the plan at least is a starting place.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), who chairs a House Republican energy task force, called it a chance to “jump start” a long-range national policy.

“For months, the relevant House committees have been dragging their feet over energy legislation,” he said. “I believe the President’s proposal will resolve the committee deadlock and jump start Congress into action.”

Staff writer Larry Stammer in Los Angeles contributed to this story.