Any proposal for governments to spend more on something should also come with a description of what they should spend less on to compensate for it.
Why should urban citizens subsidize a lifestyle choice for others? If you want to live out in the middle of nowhere you shouldn't expect everyone else to pay you for it.
Because people that live in cities need to eat.
Because we are a society.
Because not everyone that lives in the country (or a small enough town) chose to live here - people get born there and turn into adults there.
I shouldn't have to mention this, but farmers need infrastructure to keep making your food. Gas and groceries and utilities and grain silos and schools and doctors and a bunch more - oh, and people that operate all of this.
Those people that make all that stuff run need a lot of that stuff too.
Do you want your citizens to have electricity, as is expected in a modern 21st century country - or would you rather folks go without because of cost? If yes, then getting electricity to houses should be a priority, even if they never profit.
It should also be very noted that electric companies tend to balance the rural costs out with charging urban customers a bit more to make up for the difference, much like healthcare (whether it be premiums or taxes)