Lots of people have chimed on on my post, but i'm going to reply to yours as a general answer to everyone.How do you feel the percentage compares to other editions?
4e PH has 15 pages of skills (176-190), 20 pages of rituals (296-315). Utility powers are always non-attack things but are often at least somewhat combat useful like levitate. I am not sure offhand how much to peg utility powers as a percentage of class powers (at will are not going to be 25% of AEDU) and on where to peg them as combat or noncombat. Blur is pretty much only combat, but disguise self is pretty hard to classify as a combat spell. I am not going to try and guess on breaking down feats.
Most non-combat spells from prior editions seem to be in 4e as utility powers or rituals. Which seems the biggie on prior edition non-combat mechanics.
Here is what I mean by an amazing tactical skirmish game but not so amazing role-playing game. Look at the difference in presentation of these three identical things....
Differences (the loss of which makes the spell fell less "real" in the game)
1. Area/Range is in squares (a combat abstract) instead of feet (a real world thing)
2. No individual material component.
3. No spell school.
4. No mention of fire specific effects like melting, destroying items, unattended items, etc.
5. (Only compared to 3e) No mention of the mechanics of the pre-exploded fireball.
So in this particular example of a purely combat related spell there are so many things shaved off the 4e description that it reduces the "feel" of what was a spell of chaotic firey destruction to living and non-living things in the environment into just a way to do some damage to "Each creature in burst" without any other consequences (unless the GM decided to house rule them).