They are not forced to make those kinds of capital investments if they're unable - they'd be no worse off than today. Those who do get cheaper electricity (in lieu of whatever they could've otherwise spent that capital on).
However, it's the onus of the gov't (regional or federal) to create the investment needed for large, industrial scale solar and battery storage. That's what taxpayer money should be spent on.
> they'd be no worse off than today.
They will, assuming the people that went off grid stop paying for it. As fewer people pay for it the costs per capita grow
The cost of the grid has already been paid for. Upgrades to the grid has a higher per-capita cost, if there's fewer people paying for those upgrades today.
But they're not worse off, because the upgrades are better. For them to be worse off, the upgrades they pay for has to be worse than what they got today.
> The cost of the grid has already been paid for.
You should really talk to some California utilities and their wildfire exposure.
And anywhere else, anything you put up you need to maintain. And aren't most grids built with loans anyway? That interest would be born by fewer people.
Not sure if you own a house, if you do, here's a thought experiment.
It's all paid for, right? Doesn't cost a thing to own a home?
Maintenance costs money as well.