Few doubt the benefits and convenience of electricity. And most of us are willing to pay for its use and the trouble of getting it to our house. Those who provide it should be compensated accordingly. These things need hardly be mentioned except for the editorial commentary of April 13 [“Renewable energy benefits all,” guest commentary submitted by ONCOR].

Most of us are not so ignorant as to be unaware of what’s good for us. And to fight against something we do not want -- 345 KV transmission lines in our front lawn -- is the prerogative of all citizens. Much could be learned by answering the question: If some think ‘renewable energy’ is so good, why would landowners fight against it?

As for my husband and me, the answer is simple: Electric companies are in business to make money; selling electricity is how they do that. The trouble is, for a variety of reasons, we may not want their product (or the means by which they transport this product). Electric companies have the choice of improving their product, finding a different audience or, as in this case, forcing the situation through the strong, unstoppable arm of the PUC by way of condemnation of private land.

In the end, the landowner must submit; their choice is taken away. To misconstrue this as balancing respect for private property owners with the state’s need for more renewable electricity is to be dismissive of the very people they claim to “serve.”

Let’s be clear: If I don’t accept their offer to buy my land, it will be taken by force. That’s not very neighborly. In fact, it ought to be against the law. But it’s not (Texas Constitution Article 1, Sec. 17).

And when I can take from you what I want, it’s easy for me to be magnanimous about the process; but it is equally cruel to show contempt for those trying to protect themselves against an unstoppable force.
Amy Parke
Kempner