[Grishnakh]

What? That's crap. Why should single home dwellers have to pay more for water and electricity and gas just because their house is bigger? Then you'll have apartment dwellers running the heat with the windows open.

Utilities should be paid per-use, just as it is now. People with bigger houses are naturally going to pay more because a bigger house usually needs more power/fuel for HVAC, unless their house is more efficient. Also, we need to incentivize making homes more energy-efficient, and regressive policies like yours discourage efficiency. Smaller isn't always better; crappy old small houses and apartments can easily use far more energy than new McMansions.

And that leads me to one big problem in the rental market is that landlords never spend a dime on improving or renovating homes for better energy-efficiency, because the tenant has to pay all the utilities.

[akgerber]

Water and electricity and gas are generally less cost-efficient to provide to less-dense neighborhoods, as the length of wire & pipe (and maintenance overhead) needed to serve a given number of residences is significantly higher. This is likewise why electricity and phone service were not provided to rural areas until subsidized by the government by taxing urban dwellers.

[Grishnakh]

To new neighborhoods, you're right. To existing neighborhoods, you're wrong: the infrastructure is already there. There's no reason to raise rates for people for something that's already paid for. That's like adding a toll to a road that's been there for 50 years; it's just profiteering.

Maintenance is not going to be any higher for lower density; it's not like you see electric utility workers in the suburbs constantly, repairing stuff. And access is more difficult in higher-density housing too: in a suburb, you just drive the truck up to the transformer, but in a large building, it isn't that easy.

As for rural areas, there's a huge difference between urban and rural areas (where houses are miles apart), and urban and suburban areas (where houses are 20 feet apart).

[ambicapter]

> And that leads me to one big problem in the rental market is that landlords never spend a dime on improving or renovating homes for better energy-efficiency, because the tenant has to pay all the utilities.

If that were the case they could charge 'fixed utilities' at a reasonable price and then when they upgrade for energy efficiency they reap those gains.

[Grishnakh]

You mean force the landlords to pay for the utilities? Doing that means the tenants then blast the heat with the windows and doors wide open: they have no incentive to be economical with their energy usage. All it takes is one bad tenant like that with $2000/month utility bills and the landlord has to declare bankruptcy.

Why not just have some kind of regulation requiring rental dwellings to meet certain energy efficiency standards? And combine this with some programs to help landlords upgrade, perhaps with low-interest loans or something.