In Wyoming, coal keeps pockets fat. Alaska has gas and oil. Iowa is husky on record subsidies for corn-based ethanol. These states avoided the budget crises sweeping the country because of their abundant, valuable resources.

If industry, politicians and, most importantly, the people embrace development of renewable energy, Maine could join them. This state has a surplus of energy generating capacity, in a region where energy demand is only growing.

This is the crux of the argument for Maine’s schism with ISO-New England, the regional power grid. A resolution earning committee approval in the Legislature this week says if Maine thinks it’s best off-the-grid, it should break out.

It’s a great bit of saber-rattling, following the landmark January report by the Maine Public Utilities Commission, which declared staying with ISO could cost Maine ratepayers millions, as energy demands increase to the south.

The ISO rebellion is about leverage. Because Maine generates more electricity than it uses, it feeds the grid, where its surplus is gobbled by the voracious voltage needs of Connecticut and Massachusetts. In the ISO arrangement, Maine is a supplier – a precious resource.

A companion bill, which would give Maine sway over the federal placing of energy corridors for transmitting electricity, follows the same thinking: leverage, control. So should all energy policy.

From a resource perspective, Maine is an embarrassment of riches. Whether wind, water or biomass (wood), the potential for leveraging the state’s renewable energies on a regional, or perhaps national, level is tantalizing. And building Maine’s future around its landscape, forests and waters is an old concept, but with a new application.

It starts by thinking of Maine as a resource state. Capability to produce energy – as Wyoming, Kansas and Alaska show – provides economic stability, in the toughest times.

Changing the ISO relationship is one part of this policy. Maine has made wise overtures to New Brunswick for energy partnerships, which is another warning shot to southern New England that it cannot take Maine’s energy resources for granted. This means, of course, neither can we.

This is where the discussion gets difficult, and leadership scarce, as the greatest obstacle facing renewable energy projects in Maine, so far, is Maine. The easiest answer to “How does Maine control its energy future?” is, simply, getting out of the way.

The status quo is untenable. If nothing changes, Mainers will pay millions for transmission projects in southern New England through the ISO. Meanwhile, our electricity costs will rise with the prices of oil and natural gas. Some three-quarters of Maine’s electricity is generated by oil and gas, a frightening level of dependence.

And if nothing changes, Maine will have scattershot development of renewable energies based on appeasing sentiments, rather than progressive action. Maine will never maximize its potential as a resource state, as long as it keeps fighting with itself.

This is counterproductive, when we have so much to offer.