When Ted Strickland put forward in the summer his plan for restructuring the electricity industry in the state, he added a dose of urgency. Get the job completed by the end of the year, the governor emphasized to lawmakers. He noted the looming deadline, Ohio heading for a fully deregulated electricity market in January 2009. Act soon, and regulators and power companies would have time to make the necessary adjustments.

Truth be told, the timetable was most ambitious in view of the complexity of the issue and the muscle of the many interested parties. The Ohio House performed a favor by holding extensive hearings the past two months, witnesses clashing in front of lawmakers, adding to the legislature's collective understanding. The Senate did not achieve such thoroughness in overwhelmingly approving legislation in November.

When will the House pass its own version of a restructuring plan? A week ago, Speaker Jon Husted described the bill as ''very close to being ready.'' That was heartening to hear. March is approaching, and now the legislature must act.

The speaker described the roadblock to passage. It involves defining when a functioning market exists.

When lawmakers approved electricity deregulation in 1999, they altered dramatically the landscape for power companies. If the experiment has failed in many respects, the state cannot just return to the old regulatory model. It must craft an effective ''hybrid,'' leaving utilities with the option of choosing a more regulated regimen or going to the marketplace.

The governor and state senators insist they have crafted an effective hybrid. The trouble is, they rely almost exclusively on the Public Utilities Commission to define when an effective market exists. The speaker rightly argues that power companies deserve something more concrete in the form of legislation that establishes clear criteria for a market, the standards, in other words, that they must meet.

What are the standards? That is the argument in play at the Statehouse, countless lobbyists, consultants and others looking to have their say. They've talked long enough. The speaker has made a most persuasive case for adding benchmarks and greater enforcement to the pursuit of a state portfolio of 25 percent renewable and advanced energy by 2025. Get the market defined, and the state can move forward.

The task is challenging, no doubt. It is not insurmountable. If the sheer volume of trades in the wholesale market is not sufficient evidence of a robust market, other criteria are available, including the availability of supply, the barriers to entry and the number of interested suppliers. Test the climate by issuing requests for proposals, and if too few arrive, then declare the market lacking. Protect against soaring price increases in that way.

Adversaries in this debate long have been talking past one another, each preferring the market definition of its narrow choosing. Yet listen carefully, and you detect much room for agreement. They must simply decide to bridge differences. That should be now in the House bill, allowing Ohio to put behind this discussion, having achieved the proper balance of market flexibility and regulatory stability.