One of the hardest tasks for policymakers in the ongoing debate about building more liquefied natural gas terminals in the United States is balancing local opposition with a nationwide need for more gas. As Maine has seen, the debate quickly becomes distorted because local concerns, which are specific and identifiable, often trump the vaguer, hard-to-quantify regional and national benefits. The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is preparing to play the role of regional moderator by carefully analyzing individual LNG proposals and weighing them against regional benefits and concerns. The sooner they are able to step into the fray, the better.

Steven Pearlstein, a business columnist for The Washington Post, summed up the dilemma during an online discussion earlier this month. “The costs and benefits of adding energy infrastructure tend to be very asymmetric,” he said. “For people living nearby, or who like to fish nearby, the losses are real, concentrated and significant, while the gains are spread out among every consumer of energy in the relevant market, who barely know that they benefit or by how much. So that’s why the politics tends to favor the antis, and why real leaders are necessary to speak up for the unknowing majority who benefit.”

He was answering a question about a project in Maryland, but he could just as easily have been talking about Maine. There are currently three different proposals to build LNG terminals in Washington County. The debate about these projects so far has centered on concerns about LNG facilities keeping tourists away, lost fishing grounds and safety – all valid fears – as measured against jobs and increased revenue for poor towns. This is too narrow a view.

As the hurricane-induced focus on energy has shown, limited supplies of oil and gas mean high prices and, many fear, shortages. The governor has urged Mainers to conserve energy this winter so that New England does not run out of natural gas, the source of nearly half of the region’s electricity.

The situation, given increasing energy demand in the United States and globally, will only get worse. In this context, the Washington County debate is part of the much larger consideration of diversified energy supplies.

This is where CLF comes in. The group, which has a history of trying to solve problems through compromise, has long advocated for more natural gas to replace dirtier coal and oil, which also carries a political price tag since much of it comes from the Middle East. After articulating why more LNG should be imported to the United States, the group has begun the difficult task of evaluating specific proposed projects and working to determine which make the most sense environmentally, economically and technically. Because projects in southern New England are farther along, they have received more attention than the Maine proposals.

Locating an LNG terminal is a local issue, but adoption or rejection of development plans should be proceeded by consideration of broader public interests, such as lower energy bills, a diversified energy source and pollution reduction. That debate is overdue here.