The best hope for resolving the impasse over the controversial gas cap lies in the compromise measure now under consideration by the state Senate.

The market disturbance of Hurricane Katrina caused a pricing aberration that clouded any effort to evaluate the cap right away. In addition, pump prices varied from one gas station to the next, and fluctuations in Mainland markets caused continuing volatility.

Many consumers found all of this disconcerting.

It's clear that the gas cap needs at least some revision, but unless its friends and foes can come to terms at the Capitol, the status quo will remain in effect for another year. And that's not the way to go.

The House favors scrapping the cap in favor of making gas pricing more "transparent" to the public, moderating industry pricing schemes in the process. This solution falls short, however: Under the House version, much of the essential information behind the buying and selling of oil and gas still would be kept from consumers.

In short, it's not transparent enough.

The compromise proposed by Sen. Ron Menor, D-17th (Mililani, Mililani Mauka, Waipi'o), would expand on what information is transparent. And it would suspend the cap. If market forces prevail, the cap stays suspended. But if prices rise beyond that threshhold for two weeks, the cap would be reactivated for two weeks.

Industry leaders argue that the gas cap never addressed the real causes of high prices — taxation and other costs. They maintain that Menor's compromise does no better and is nothing more than a sneaky way to keep the cap in effect by allowing it to hang above the industry, poised to drop like a 10-ton anvil.

That analysis ignores a key improvement the amendments would offer: truer transparency, enabling a clearer view of the marketplace.

There also would be a safeguard for the industry. The governor would have broader powers to suspend the cap altogether should the industry or the economy generally appear endangered.

Undoubtedly the bill will need further refinement in conference committee. But lawmakers owe it to consumers to give this more balanced approach a fair review.