Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, their argument is sound. It’s just missing the point of utilities. They’re saying that the cost of providing electricity to the cities, where everything is densely located and there are fewer trees and fewer overhead lines needing under grounding is lower so they should charge less to city consumers. They imply that the bulk of the cost is delivering power to the richer consumers further out because there’s a lot…
Maybe, but it's also clear that rural electrification was a huge error. People should live in clusters of at least a handful of structures where it's practical and affordable to provision electric lines (and telecommunications), or they should be off the grid altogether. What we built in the 20th century was the worst possible thing: mile after mile of transmission and distribution equipment serving dispersed houses…
The Rural Electrification Act not only brought power to rural areas, but also jobs to Americans when they were most needed, and countless follow-on benefits: increased farm productivity, longer lifespans and higher quality of life, etc.
It’s also not that subsidized compared to many other industries; the entire point of co-ops is purchasing something in bulk, with no one taking the profits. They get loans, yes, but the default rate on them is absurdly low.
And on that point, electric co-ops consistently produce reliable power at a lower cost than privately-owned utilities. I’ve experienced both, in multiple areas of the country, and by far co-ops beat everyone else.
This doesn’t even touch on the fact that the infrastructure enabled by the REA is also the only reason high speed internet ever made it to rural areas. Fiber everywhere should absolutely be a goal.