WASHINGTON – The House approved a far-ranging energy bill yesterday that would open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling and shield makers of a controversial gasoline additive from environmental lawsuits – both issues likely to meet strong opposition in the Senate.

The bill also would funnel more than $12 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies. Opponents of the legislation said it would do little to foster less energy use. A proposal to require higher fuel economy for cars was rejected.

The administration embraced the legislation, although a White House analysis expressed reservations about the size of the incentives to the oil and gas industries, especially a $2 billion subsidy for developing oil and gas in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

After passage, President Bush praised the bill as “an important step to secure our energy future and to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.” Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the measure was not perfect, but “we now have a bill, something to work with.”

After two days of debate and amendments, the legislation was approved 249-183 with 41 Democrats joining the GOP majority.

Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said the size of the Democratic support was a sign that this year’s legislation might fare better in the Senate than the bill two years ago that died there.

The Senate was expected to develop its bill in the coming weeks, hoping to finish by mid-May, a target some call too optimistic. The House and Senate versions then would have to be meshed in negotiations.

To foster less energy use, the House bill calls for extending daylight-saving time by two months and offering tax breaks for homeowners to install more energy efficient windows and insulation. The bill’s supporters also said that provisions requiring refiners to use more corn-based ethanol in gasoline and allowing oil drilling in the Alaska refuge would reduce American reliance on imports.

Most Democrats denounced the bill as a giveaway to energy industries.

It is “clearly designed to help energy companies make more money, not help the American people save money,” said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. She called it “anti-consumer, anti-taxpayer, anti-environment” and said it fails to address major concerns of people across the country: high gasoline and other energy costs.

Republican supporters of the bill acknowledged it does little to lower record high prices at the pump, but argued that the provisions are aimed at broadening and increasing the country’s energy supply in the long run. They contend that if the bill had become law four years ago, when Mr. Bush issued his energy task force report, the current energy problems might not be as acute.

The MTBE gas additive issue brought the most dramatic moment as the House closed in on its final vote yesterday.

House Republican leaders had tried to prevent a floor vote on the issue. Democrats said GOP leaders wanted to shield not only MTBE manufacturers from lawsuits, but also lawmakers from having to vote on a matter involving drinking-water contamination in communities in their districts.

Democrats forced a vote, arguing that the MTBE provision violates a 1995 law because it would saddle states and municipalities with huge expenses.

Rep. Lois Capps, a Democrat of California, said groundwater contamination from the additive has affected more than 1,800 community water systems in 29 states with a potential cleanup cost of $29 billion.

Her amendment to remove the provision failed 219-213.

“That was a surrogate vote on Tom DeLay,” said Mr. Barton. The MTBE provision has been a top priority of Mr. DeLay, the majority leader who also has been under criticism from Democrats because of ethics issues. Mr. DeLay had insisted on the MTBE industry protection in the bill that passed the House but stalled in the Senate when Democrats launched a filibuster over MBTE in 2003.

The House bill would shield MTBE manufacturers, including large oil companies, from lawsuits claiming the companies knew all along it would cause water contamination. At least 80 lawsuits involving MTBE have been filed.

Democrats also tried to eliminate a provision allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but failed by a vote of 231-200. The House has given the go-ahead for drilling there twice in the past four years, only to see the issue fail in the Senate.

Rep. Richard Pombo, a Republican of California, said the refuge was a unique place that deserved protection but argued that it also was one of the few places left where substantial amounts of domestic crude could be recovered.

Critics of the proposal said the oil won’t be available for a decade and then will not be enough – as much as 1 million barrels a day – to significantly affect either prices or the need for large amounts of imports.