> if private enterprise can compete with that by offering a better product and/or cheaper service, then all the more power to them. In this case, going off-gri

> if private enterprise can compete with that by offering a better product and/or cheaper service, then all the more power to them. In this case, going off-grid is exactly that: private enterprise offering a more suitable alternative for this use case. In fact, it's the correct solution, because the public should not be required to subsidize the choice of an individual to live in an area not well served by power distribution infrastructure shared across many homes. It's just like how the government won't pay for paving a long driveway (AKA road) that connects a rural house to the main highway. Government should only get involved in subsidizing these things when the goal is to scale access to millions, i.e: - High impact nascent and early stage technology (i.e. EVs, renewables) - Generational scale investments in human capital and infrastructure that private industry is too risk averse to undertake. Subsidizing rural home builders to the tune of 80K does nothing for anyone except that home builder. It would be undoubtedly nice for them, but that's not a justification for allowing it.