No one advocated ignoring the vulnerability. I, myself, specifically stated that monitoring should be direct. Consumers should unilaterally decide where, when and how their assets are monitored.

The material point on security is that there are many, many methods of disrupting a power grid. Even when you are looking for plausible deniability, shutting down solar panels from cloud website doesn't make a list of your top 10 options. (In fact, it won't make the list in those scenarios precisely because you are looking for plausible deniability.)

Let's imagine a power grid as modern societies know them today, except all consumers monitor their solar panels themselves, and none of those consumers outsource this monitoring function to any third party foreign or domestic. Power grids can still be materially disrupted in this scenario. Especially in the case of total war. Obviously in the case of open war. And particularly in the case of cold war.

As I said, I advocate consumers disconnecting any power generation functions from networks. But if I'm in the seat coming up with post conflict, or even simply emergency recovery, operating assumptions, I'm not counting on those panels generating power. It's just irresponsible to do so. In total war EMP will knock most of that generation off line where you're luck enough not to have it eliminated entirely. In cold or open war, disruptions to distribution can and will render that generation useless. (Just ask Ukraine.)

Consumer cloud, or even personal, monitoring of solar panels does not enhance, nor does it degrade, your adversary's ability to disrupt your power grid when your adversary is at that super power level. If you believe it does, you're either not looking at the full spectrum of what you're calling "vulnerabilities" extant in the infrastructure of modern societies. Or you're underestimating the full spectrum of capabilities of modern military powers. Both, frankly, are fatal mistakes in the types of crises we're postulating.