The comprehensive energy bill taking final shape in the General Assembly this month is all about power -- producing it and paying for it.

It's also about powerful compromises -- trade-offs between consumer, environmental and business interests.

And, like the controversial immigration package recently defeated in the U.S. Senate, North Carolina's multi-faceted energy bill emerged from some surprising agreements reached during a quiet process that involved, as one state senator put it, "more than a dozen interested parties."

Little wonder that Senate Bill 3 is now generating opposition. Just as with the federal immigration bill, the pressure is on to ditch some of the key compromises. The stitched-together energy package, which has passed the Senate but awaits action in the House, could yet fall apart.

Some of the opposition comes from global warming skeptics and others who don't like a requirement that Duke Energy and Progress Energy provide 12.5 percent of their power from "renewable" sources of energy (including conservation) by 2021. The utilities are willing -- even eager -- to go along, and setting such a state standard would be a first in the Southeast. Consumers would pay up to $10 per year extra (through 2011; more later) to compensate for the higher costs of, for example, solar power.

Nonetheless, the 12.5 percent target for renewables isn't the most ambitious around, and Congress may step in anyway with a national standard. For fast-growing North Carolina, where solar and wind-power prospects aren't outstanding, the provision is a worthwhile move toward a greener future. In particular, if energy efficiency holds as much promise as it appears to, the resulting lowered demand for electricity could mean the utilities would need to build -- and consumers pay for -- fewer of the big "baseload" generating plants.

Which leads to the larger and more persuasive share of opposition to the energy bill.

Costs of business

Some environmental groups balk at power plant-construction provisions in Senate Bill 3 that one news story understandably termed "sweeteners" for the utilities. The bill, for example, allows power companies to start billing consumers for the cost of building new plants before the units are finished.

In the case of new nuclear plants, it even permits the companies -- if the Utilities Commission says yes -- to bill customers for planning work. Also, the companies could recover construction costs for out-of-state generating facilities, provided the power is headed our way. And they could make customers pay for canceled plants, if the incurred costs had been approved by the state.

The ratepayers, some environmentalists worry, will bear all the risk.

Not all of it, surely -- but perhaps too much. Although ratepayers clearly have an interest in keeping North Carolina's electric utilities financially strong, there should be a limit on those ratepayers' risks when it comes to new plant construction.

There, the utilities will benefit from all the discipline the free market's financing mechanisms can bring to bear in evaluating prospects and controlling costs. In the past, U.S. utilities, relying too much on state-mandated guarantees of consumer bailouts, launched too many questionable projects, particularly excess nuclear power plants.

Caution on recovery

Duke and Progress appear sobered by construction costs and aren't likely to go overboard with new plants. Still, dialing back at least some of the energy bill's cost-recovery provisions makes sense. Other provisions in the bill that help the utilities with fuel and pollution-control costs already sweeten their outlook.

The overall energy bill involves everything from encouraging pig-poop power (from methane gas) to phasing out state taxes on manufacturers' electricity and natural gas bills. It can survive a little tweaking; the energy-from-hog-waste provision, for example, should not become an incentive to retain hog farms' environmentally troublesome waste lagoons. At a minimum, Senate Bill 3's provisions related to the cost of new power plants should get plenty of attention in the House before a final vote.

Next week the House Committee on Energy and Energy Efficiency plans testimony from independent electric-utility experts. If, as a Progress Energy spokesman says, "It's a consensus bill, and we believe it will stand up to scrutiny of the legislative process," that hearing should be standing room only.