By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Let’s start with a fundamental concept involved in governing people’s lives. Those who make decisions that affect others ought at least have to suffer — as well as enjoy — the impact of those decisions.

Six members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas have resigned. What do these individuals have in common? None of them lives in Texas, the state where ERCOT manages the electrical grid that became the source of a whole lot of heartache and misery for Texans suffering from the bitter storm that swept into the state this past week.

I won’t get into the particulars of the decisions that ERCOT made that could have contributed to the massive power failures that occurred in Texas. Indeed, North Texas — where I live — went dark for several days as the electrical utilities sought to restore power.

ERCOT is a non-profit organization. It also is subject to regulation by the state. Gov. Greg Abbott has called on the Texas Legislature to investigate ERCOT’s decision-making and, I presume, make recommendations for changes that could prevent an unacceptable loss of power in the future.

Here’s a thought: Require all ERCOT board members to reside in Texas.

Resigning ERCOT members acknowledge “pain and suffering” of power outages | The Texas Tribune

The Texas Tribune reports: “I want to acknowledge the pain and suffering of Texans during this tragedy that continues for many,” said Sally Talberg, ERCOT’s board chair, who was among the members who resigned. “All of our hearts go out to all of you who have had to go without electricity, heat, water, medicine and food from frigid temperatures and continue to face the tragic consequences.”

Thanks, Ms. Talberg, for the expression of concern. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and presume she means it. That doesn’t cut it, though, given that she resides out of state and wasn’t feeling the “pain and suffering” of those of  us who live inside Texas’s borders.

A big part of me is drawn to the notion that there ought to be a residency requirement placed on those who set the policies that have an effect on those who must endure their effects.

Doesn’t that make sense? It does to me.