Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a lot like saying, in 1995, that if the internet was going to be a useful thing to society, then everybody would already be using it. Utilities are slow. And not so bright. They are using old technology that hasn't changed for decades, has reached its peak, and doesn't advance. Utilities are conservative. If something new comes out and is better, it's going to take them a decade to even realize what's happeni…
Utilities are huge financial organzations that have to provide secure generation and transportation over decades. Just because solar is cheaper now doesn't mean you can replace everything in just a few years. Also Solar might work great in California but Nebraska not so much.
If you think that solar doesn't work fantastically in Nebraska, then I think you need to reevaluate the data, and start holding your utility to account.
Solar works great in Minnesota, with lower solar resources than Nebraska. The key difference is whether the utility will allow a financially beneficial decision to made, not the fundamental economics of the technology.
Contrast the planned 2023 solar additions in yellow dots on this map:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818
With the amount of solar insolation (note that the color gradient only spans a ~30-40% overall difference, too):
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-ghi-2018...
So while you are right that utilities are slow, which was the main thrust of my original comment, we must also acknowledge the financial incentives of utilities to distort a setup that can not even result be called a market.
Electricity decisions are made based on what the utility perceives will give it the greatest profit, with all their biases, and without regard to what will deliver the best overall cost-optimal solution for reliable power.