Voters in Perry were the latest Mainers to reject the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in their community.

They join voters up and down the coast – in Harpswell, most recently, but also in Cumberland, Yarmouth and several localities in Massachusetts – who have passed up the opportunity for new jobs and big payments to prevent the LNG projects. In Perry, developers offered $1 million a year, enough to cover the community’s entire budget, and then some, for the rights to build. The town still said no.

Language proposed for the U.S. House of Representatives’ version of the energy bill, which is being prepared this week, could end the ability of communities and states to judge the appropriateness of LNG developments. As proposed, the bill would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to overrule state and local decisions about the placement of LNG terminals.

For coastal communities in Maine, Massachusetts and elsewhere, that could mean the federal government would dictate where the terminals should be situated. Not only could communities lose the ability to say no, they also could lose the ability to negotiate for a good deal. With the possibility of federal intrusion looming, LNG developers could take their chances with FERC.

The energy needs of the country are growing quickly. Oil prices continue to climb, putting strain on the economy and on individual pocketbooks. A more coordinated approach to new energy resources – such as LNG terminals, nuclear power and renewable energy sources – could help put the country on more sound footing.

But we have real concerns about the federal or the state government forcing communities to accept large projects that could alter the balance between the environment, traditional uses, existing industries and the quality of life. Towns like Perry and Harpswell shouldn’t be shut out.