And where else should the government get that money then?

As an urban ratepayer in Ontario, I would very much not like my electrical fees to subsidize the recreationally remote, thanks. Rural/wilderness homes in Ontario already have heavily subsidized road infrastructure and get a larger cut of the carbon tax rebate per person. It's one thing to subsidize agricultural communities, but this is different. If you have some deep burning need to be a woodsman, more power to you, but that's your decision and your money.

And looking at the article, if off-grid is more economic for the resident for that kind of life, then it's also more economical for the government. Everybody wins. Subsidizing that would eliminate that win/win.

That said, as carbon pricing rises, the calculus on propane power may shift over time... which, I assume, will result in such residents loudly opposing carbon pricing.

Why do you expect the rural taxpayers to pay for urban/city only improvements like transit/subways or money to fight guns/gangs but balk at the thought of paying for electrical hookups in rural areas.

Pretty sure they don't pay anything since people living outside cities is net minus everywhere, maintaining all the infrastructure id expensive as fuck. I'm five with it but the reality is that they are being subsidised everywhere per capita. Economies of scale, capitalism 101.

Any data to back that up?

Anecdotally, Philadelphia is the poorest county in our state, while Chester county is the richest. Seems like suburban areas bring in the most money and can afford excellent infrastructure, while infrastructure in the city is in constant disrepair.

> If you have some deep burning need to be a woodsman, more power to you, but that's your decision and your money.

One could say the same if you choose to be a car-less urban dweller who relies on transit and high-density infrastructure.

You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion.

"One could say the same if you choose to be a car-less urban dweller who relies on transit and high-density infrastructure.

You can stereotype and caricature people both ways, neither helps the discussion."

Car-less urban dweller pays ticket fees for transit, so the argument doesn't work.

They aren't car-less because they are saving money - if you give everyone who uses public transport a car, gridlock will get so bad there will be bodies in the street.

Sigh.. sure, you can find faults in anyone's examples if you're just interested in doing that instead of debating the broader point.

Neither side can be diluted down to an anecdote, but I guess here we are all trying to do it anyways.

My point was actually about the stereotyping and the painting of all rural dwellers as recreational, as if urban dwelling is the only valid choice and everyone else is intentionally choosing a lesser or more difficult lifestyle.

The _overall_ point here is that connecting to any public utilities should not be made prohibitively expensive just because you live in rural areas.

> The _overall_ point here is that connecting to any public utilities should not be made prohibitively expensive just because you live in rural areas.

In this case, the argument is not that it was "made" prohibitively expensive. It's that it is prohibitively expensive, and the debate is whether or not it should be made less expensive through subsidy by government actors.

This same debate will be occurring with providing other services to remote locations as carbon costs get incorporated into the prices of distribution of services. It's not going to get better.

Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees? Not that I'm a fan of government reach, but if the single, monopoly, private corporation can't provide necessary services at a rate that their customers can afford, and there isn't any competition to "naturally" reduce rates, then this is a place where governments usually step in. They step in the form of subsidies and grants, the sources of income of which are usually taxation or fees levied to other constituents. And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries. This is an area where monopolistic practices should have limits, even if such costs are "necessary". This is where governments have the positive ability to help.

My comment was based on the understanding was that the government was already involved with the company and proving subsidies already.

"Isn't that why the government has the power of taxation or the ability to levy fees?"

My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?

In this case, government grants to individual homeowners looking to connect to the public utility makes the most sense. It's also easy to quantify since you can see how many people are interested in connecting to the grid who aren't currently. Governments can find multiple ways to source funds for those grants. Homeowners would apply for those grants and get funds for the connection. If funds aren't provided directly they are often provided as credits against property tax. The gov pays the utility directly.

I've seen it done this way for many different projects.

"My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense"

Thats literally the opposite of how taxes work. What you are describing is called charging the customer.

Taxes are paid independant of usage, my taxes pay for schools wven if I dont have kids. Someone with 10 kids but less income pays less taxes for schools.

"Taxes are paid independant of usage"

False.

That's only one example of a tax. How about gas taxes to pay for the roads they use?

>And electricity, running water, and sewage are considered to be essential necessities, not luxuries.

In the US, the latter two are not broadly considered necessities in rural areas. The situation varies but wells, where possible, and septic systems are extremely common away from urban metros and towns of a certain size.

I have both a well and septic, so I totally get it. But if you are connected to public water or public sewer, which often a municipal monopoly for good reasons, and you have limited other choices, the local government places restrictions on the cost of getting hooked up to public water and sewer if there are no alternatives.

In any case, water and sewer are indeed considered necessities and you are unable to sell or convey a house in the state that I live without a functional water or sewage system, whether on public water/sewer or on well / septic. If you have a non-functioning well or non-functioning septic (outhouses are no longer allowed), then you can't sell your house, and also you are in risk of having your own house condemned. So these are indeed necessities.

They're not considered necessities in the sense that the government has to, in general, provide you with a hookup at a reasonable cost. But, as you say, running water and proper sewage may be a zoning requirement to build a house and live on a property just as a variety of other things may be requirements.

I think you can still call them neccessary, but they just aren't public utilities in rural areas. If you have a well, you still have running water. If you have a septic system, the sewage has somewhere to go.

Right. But the context was a comment to the effect of the government providing them at a reasonable price. Which, as you say, it commonly doesn't in many rural or semi-rural areas.

The government gets most of its money through taxes in Canada.

Then they plan and redistribute that money to the agencies, corporations and departments that provide essential services for the population, and it gets spent on offering and managing those services. (Yes this is a simplified explanation)

Not sure how it works where you live but I suspect it's probably similar.

My comment was based on the understanding was that the government was already involved with the company and proving subsidies already.

My point was that some taxation is based on usage, so charging those using the utility would make sense. This would mean still charging the people connected. Otherwise, who would the government tax to subsidize these other citizens?

Government gets its money from spending the money.

They don't use Loonies anywhere else.

As my Canadian aunt says: money is made round to go around.

The cost of hook up is the time of the people to do that job, which means they can't do anything else.

Is Canada that short of electrical engineers that it can't maintain its current grid and add new connections?

It's more a problem of population density vs the cost of setting up and maintaining the infrastructure.

So if Elon Musk decides to carve out a 1,000 acre compound 50km from the closest power source the government, no tax payers, should pay for the hundreds of thousands to connect him to the grid?

Look there's _always_ an edge case that makes the generalized common good approach sound unreasonable.

But in the end, you make the best rules you can that help the majority of people, and you accept that they will not be 100% ideal. If some people end up unfairly benefiting from it, so be it.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

It’s unreasonable even if not extreme. Some dude who wants to retire 50km into the bush because land is cheap shouldnt get a $100k subsidy by tax payers.

Giving a huge subsidy to someone in the top 1% when they buy a luxury electric car with monstrous torque is also suboptimal. https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives

So is giving below market rate housing to someone who rents it out while buying a bigger home elsewhere with the rental payments. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/11/21/san-francisco-t...

Or giving food stamps to someone who sells them for money to buy more alcohol. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/16/investigation-unc...

Welcome to the world of government subsidies - I don't see how you can stop any of this cost-effectively, as money is fungible and stuff can be resold.

Sure. There aren’t enough crazy-rich people to be significant, just like at the other end there aren’t enough people having 12 kids to cause significant expense to government child benefits schemes.

> There aren’t enough crazy-rich people to be significant

In part because of these costs. If it were on the taxpayer to foot the hook-up bill, a home in the middle of the Grand Tetons would suddenly look much more attractive.

The Google maps pictures if they place certainly look pretty, but you need to be pretty rich just to be able to live so far from where most of the work is.

The land in a town or city is more expensive because of all the positive things such places bring outweighing all the negatives, even in the relatively cheap suburbs. Electricity (etc.) supply is part of that, sure, but far from the only thing.

It’s an extreme example but there are actually thousands of people who would want utilities connected to remote locations. The land is cheap.

Thousands, even hundreds of thousands, is essentially insignificant for the government of a nation of a third of a billion (as you said Musk, I’m thinking of the USA rather than Canada).