The Boolean Prime Ideal theorem has a lot of useful equivalents. Two important ones are:
- The completeness theorem for first-order logic.
- The compactness theorem for first-order logic.
What you wrote in your question, however, is not fully accurate. The existence of a non-measurable subset does not require "at least" the Boolean Prime Ideal theorem. It is in fact much much weaker than that; and is implied by weaker principles (e.g. Hahn-Banach theorem) as well very different principles (e.g. $\aleph_1\leq2^{\aleph_0}+\sf DC$ implies the existence of a non-measurable set).
If you are looking for consequences of $\sf BPI$ which are unprovable from $\sf ZF$ itself then there are plenty. Here are a few:
- Every set can be linearly ordered.
- Every infinite set has a non-trivial ultrafilter.
- If $V$ is a vector space, and $V$ has a basis $B$ then every basis of $V$ has the same cardinality as $B$.
- Marshall Hall's marriage theorem.
- Every partial order can be extended to a linear order.
- Hahn-Banach theorem.
- Every field has an algebraic closure, which is unique up to isomorphism.
- Every family of finite non-empty sets admits a choice function.
And many many more.
Some of these examples you can find in the surprisingly not-very-technical book by Herrlich, The Axiom of Choice.
If you are looking for principles which are unprovable from $\sf BPI$, but true in $\sf ZFC$, then there are plenty of these as well:
- The axiom of countable choice.
- Every infinite set is Dedekind-infinite.
- More generally, $\sf DC_\kappa$, for any $\kappa$.
- The statement "For every infinite cardinal $\frak a$, $\frak a+a=a$".
And many many others.