Communities along the Maine coast have rejected proposals to build liquefied natural gas facilities in their midst. Such sentiments may not matter if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has its way. The commission is pressing Congress to give it more authority to decide where LNG terminals should go. To get that authority, FERC must demonstrate that a single set of federal rules brings greater fairness to the permitting process and would better ensure that LNG is safely delivered to the United States.

The Energy Department expects LNG’s share of the U.S. natural gas market to increase from 3 percent now to more than 21 percent by 2025. More than 60 percent of U.S. households use natural gas. There are currently four LNG terminals in the United States – in Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia and Louisiana. FERC has given preliminary approval to three new facilities, all on the Gulf Coast, and several other projects are proposed.

LNG is touted by environmentalists as being cleaner burning than oil and coal. Increased use of LNG could mean less pollution and fewer health problems for those affected by dirty air. Increased use of LNG may also help decrease the United States’ dependence on oil from volatile regions such as the Middle East.

For these reasons, boosting the country’s LNG imports could benefit millions of Americans.

On the other hand, local opposition to proposed LNG facilities is often strong. Voters in Perry last month voted to reject an LNG terminal on Gleason Cove, although the Passamaquoddy Tribe, which has entered into an agreement with an Oklahoma company to develop the facility, approved it. Opponents were concerned about the safety of LNG and potential environmental damage that would result from the project.

But is it fair that fewer than 500 voters decide whether a potentially more benign fuel can be brought into the United States?

A proposal currently being debated in the U.S. House as part of its energy bill would give FERC final authority to approve LNG projects. The legislation would require FERC to consult with state and local agencies on safety and other LNG issues. Federal government control of the process has two benefits: consistency so residents and companies in coastal Maine and Louisiana know what the rules are and that they are the same for everyone; and security. Since the federal government is more aware of the details of potential terrorist threats than are individual communities, it is better able to consider them in connection with LNG.

Opponents of the bill argue that it tramples states’ rights. They have a point, but on big issues like energy use and the health, environmental and foreign policy consequences of that use, states’ rights may have to balanced with the larger national good. FERC must demonstrate that it can do so.