While the renewable-energy bill that Governor Carcieri has vetoed isn’t perfect — very little legislation is — it holds much promise to get Rhode Islanders faster on the renewable-energy road as the world fossil-fuel crisis intensifies.

The governor, who expressed “great regret” for his veto, complained about details of the legislation’s requirement that National Grid enter into long-term contracts to buy electricity from renewable energy developers. But these contracts are necessary if would-be developers are to have the assurance that an enterprise would buy the developers’ electricity.

Specifically, the governor took issue with a provision in the bill that would give National Grid a bonus payment of 3 percent of the renewable-energy contracts it entered into once the project began operations. Ratepayers would pay for that bonus — by one estimate a whopping additional 13 cents a month in rates for the average customer.

National Grid argues reasonably that it would need the bonus because its cost to borrow money in the financial markets to pay for long-term contracts would be higher than for short-term contracts. The governor argues that the payment would be unneeded and “unearned.” But the realities of energy economics argue otherwise. Even if the state owned and operated electricity-generating-and-distribution facilities itself, it would have to deal with the demands of the world market.

The bonus does not strike us as an unfair incentive. The fact is that unless we can get off oil and natural gas, we’ll be paying much, much more than what this bill would add to get us on renewables.

The governor also complains that the bill does not require National Grid to enter contracts with developers building a facility in Rhode Island (except for solar exception below). True, but such a broad requirement might have unduly raised costs. And after all, the state must take the renewable energy from where it can get it — even from far-away Connecticut and Massachusetts! Better wind-power-created electricity from Cape Cod than oil from Venezuela.

The latest Massachusetts energy law includes many of the energy-efficiency reforms that Rhode Island approved in 2006, as well as very similar provisions on long-term renewable-energy contracts that Governor Carcieri just vetoed. Also note that the Massachusetts bill requires a smaller percentage of energy to come from long-term contracts but provides utilities an even greater incentive than the Rhode Island bill would — a bonus of 4 percent to enter into long-term contracts.

The governor had a point when he raised concerns about a requirement that 5 megawatts of renewable energy contracts must come from a Rhode Island-based solar-energy project. Specifically citing such a project might be problematical.

Still, some might see the governor as somewhat contradicting himself here. We thought that he wanted renewable-energy projects, such as the coastal windmills he has so commendably promoted, in the state! Also, we think that he might be underplaying the potential of solar energy around here. After all, Germany, which is far more northerly and cloudier than New England, has an extensive solar-energy sector.

Overall, the bill would point the state strongly in the right direction, the same direction that policymakers in Massachusetts and some other states are taking, and already reaping associated environmental and economic benefits. Thus we recommend that the legislature overturn Mr. Carcieri’s veto.