Also, there are a number of variations here that could have been used that would limit this even more.  

While PV isn't competitive with other sources in terms of generation costs, its generation costs are competitive for self consumption because this type of production avoids the distribution charge.  Noting this, why not focus on that strength as the basis for a campaign.  For example, installing solar street lights not only saves cities the cost of generation+distribution charges, they limit the need for building and maintaining infrastructure for this purpose. Again because self-supply evades the distribution charge, another good policy might would be to cover the roofs government buildings, schools, etc with panels to limit the amount of power they draw from the grid.  The focus has to be on the margin.

The costs of distribution + infrastructure construction/upkeep mean that for isolated communities taking them off the grid might actually make economic sense because dropping these areas where the marginal costs of distribution are particularly high can lower distribution costs throughout the rest of the grid.  While it may seem to be a step backwards to take rural areas off the electrical grid, it could very well be that because the marginal costs of delivering electricity to these areas is so high that it would actually save utilities money to remove them from the grid while maintaining a duty of service, albeit through local systems.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg