A safe site for LNG?

Correction: A photograph with last Wednesday's opinion piece on the proposal to site an LNG facility on an island in Boston Harbor was incorrectly captioned. The island pictured was Great Brewster Island.

THERE ARE some who continue to view New England's current energy crisis as a short-term challenge, such as surviving the post-Katrina spike in oil and gas prices or by reaching some tentative return to political stability among OPEC nations in the Middle East. On closer inspection, it's clear that the nature and scale of our energy challenges are different from those in the past in important ways.

For starters, the problem is not simply about America's rate of energy consumption. While energy conservation must remain a top priority, lack of supply is emerging as the major factor in high energy costs. Countries with rapidly expanding economies like China and India have doubled their energy consumption in the last decade and are putting new and massive demands on oil and gas reserves worldwide. Similarly, many nations in Europe, stricken by high oil prices and severe winter weather, are increasingly turning to natural gas because it is cleaner burning, thus straining available supply and driving up prices.

It is also important to recognize that the recent steep surge in global energy demand is part of a long-term trend that threatens to significantly increase the costs of living and doing business in the Northeast. If left unchecked, the disincentives for locating operations in the Northeast will cause companies to accelerate the shift of jobs and plants to warmer regions of our country or overseas.

While there are no easy solutions to the energy problems we face, there are steps we can take that could provide significant relief for natural gas consumers in our region.

First, we must create a competitive market for liquefied natural gas in New England. Currently, we buy LNG from only two suppliers. Their near monopoly gives them the power to essentially name their price on this critical resource. The most cost-effective way to expand our energy supply is to build one, or eventually two, LNG facilities off the coast of New England to supplement or replace the tanker-fed inland terminal in Everett.

There are several proposals under consideration for offshore facilities. All should be considered. One, proposed by AES Corp., would locate such a facility on Outer Brewster Island, one of the undeveloped Boston Harbor islands. As a longtime advocate for Boston Harbor and its environs, I understand the angst that proposals like this can cause. But the stakes for our region are high, and the costs of doing nothing are far-reaching. Unless we make a good faith effort to enable energy suppliers to bring their product to our region, we resign ourselves to the low expectations of an economy choking on high energy costs. It doesn't have to be that way. We must seriously weigh all viable alternatives.

As always, we must require that any new offshore LNG facility be constructed safely, away from densely populated areas, and with the utmost respect for our environment. This is why I testified against the construction of an inland LNG terminal in Fall River.

In addition, government must innovate. In response to the energy crisis of the 1970s, the US government created the National Petroleum Reserve to guard against fuel emergencies and to provide infusions of low-cost oil during periods of excessive demand or diminished supply. We have the capability of doing the same for natural gas. We must look at the prospect of assembling a Massachusetts or New England LNG Reserve to provide low-cost natural gas to low-income seniors and possibly to key institutions and strategic industries.

In simplest terms, the Public LNG Reserve would purchase lower-cost natural gas at favorable rates during summer months and store it at facilities within the state or region. This low-cost natural gas reserve would be drawn upon during peak demand periods, typically December through February, thus shaving peak prices for consumers.

The energy crisis we face is complicated, and it will require substantial long-term policy changes to ensure the stability of our economy and protect New England residents and businesses in the future. Naturally, alternative fuels, wind power, energy conservation, and the development of fuel-efficient technologies must be components of any viable energy policy. But I believe these ideas are a starting point to strengthen the economic and energy security of our region.

Representative Stephen F. Lynch, a South Boston Democrat, serves on the House subcommittee on national security, emerging threats, and international relations.