A win-win plan for LNG

A LEGISLATIVE committee yesterday wisely shelved a proposal to build a terminal for liquefied natural gas on a Boston Harbor island, but that is just one LNG terminal plan that poses safety or environmental risks. The region's need for new supplies of LNG will only rise now that North American supplies of natural gas are stagnant and the region's appetite for this fuel to heat homes and generate electricity grows. To ensure an adequate supply without endangering the public or natural resources, New England's governors and the leaders of Canada's Maritime Provinces should agree on an LNG plan that could be a victory for everyone.

The New England terminal that is furthest along in the permitting process is planned for a site in Fall River that is perilously close to residential areas. The terminal proposed in the harbor and rejected by the committee would require giving up a portion of the Harbor Islands National Park Area.

Neither project should go forward, especially since there are better proposals for bringing LNG to the region. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the Fall River terminal in January, one of the three commissioners, Suedeen G. Kelly, dissented. Kelly drew attention to two proposals for offshore buoy-based terminals near Gloucester, and two onshore terminals in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, that are already under construction. Because of these alternatives, Kelly said, the benefit of the Fall River terminal ''does not outweigh the unresolved safety, environmental, and socioeconomic concerns that it raises."

The Canadian terminals are connected to New England by the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, whose owner has submitted a plan to FERC for an expansion of its capacity.

Kelly's dissent should inspire the New England governors and Canadian provincial leaders to look at natural gas demand and politically palatable ways to supply it. While an informal compact among them would not trump the regulatory commission's authority in approving individual projects, the elected leaders could commit to putting their own regulatory speed bumps in the way of projects not endorsed by the compact.

Last month, the Massachusetts congressional delegation called on the US Department of Energy to coordinate LNG siting between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates onshore terminals, and the Coast Guard, which does so for offshore facilities. But the real need is for a perspective on LNG that looks beyond national borders. A reliable, safe, and environmentally benign system of LNG delivery is too important to New England to be left to the silo denizens of Washington. It is time for the governors and provincial leaders to produce a transnational plan that works for everyone.