I suspect there is a lot correct about what you are saying, PGE sucks. Hydro-Quebec is a crown corporation returning profits to the government unlike privatized

I suspect there is a lot correct about what you are saying, PGE sucks. Hydro-Quebec is a crown corporation returning profits to the government unlike privatized PGE. However, the cost of generation is separate, Quebec has tons of hydro power and PGE doesn't generate power. It seems that numerous remote communities are diesel powered, I know this is the case in the far north (https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2023/11/government-of-canada-announces-10-indigenous-communities-advancing-clean-energy-solutions.html https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2023/...). Are there any communities in California not connected to the grid even in the very remote areas? I suspect the cost of electricity and everything in these communities is very high and also subsidized. A few other questions I'm wondering is how much of the rural infrastructure in Quebec relies on the connections to the various (remote) hydropower projects (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Quebec_Map_with_Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec_infrastructures-en.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Quebec_M...). Are communities very far from those connections also served. I can't find a map of actual communities connected to the electric grid. Interestingly California has over 95% of the population living in urban areas compared to 70-80% in Quebec, not really sure which that would favor. Yes, PGE sucks. However, I still think my argument stands that the infrastructure could be much cheaper if the 95% of people living in urban California weren't paying for the rural infrastructure regardless of the nature of tree trimming costs.