I too am concerned about the richest folks bunkering down while letting the electrical networks decline. As Kunstler recently pointed out on his blog, most of the Americans who are thinking about peak oil at all are focused mostly on how to keep their cars running, with little thought to the electrical grid. I live in a compact city with good electrified transport; if oil is short, people can walk, bicycle, and ride the train; if the electricity goes out, things would start unraveling pretty fast.

Starting in the 1990's, a lot of towns have municipalized their utility networks. It would be interesting to know whether Municipal utilities are making smarter and longer-term decisions about infrastructure; I remember that during California's electricity crisis of 2000-2001, the municipal systems experienced less price volatility and fewer brown-outs and rolling blackouts than the big private utilities (PG&E and Southern California Edison). Many tech companies in the Bay Area, because their business is so dependent on electricity, sought to install backup diesel generators, and most companies I know of have made an investment in uninterruptable power supplies and computer backups. The better, and ultimately more cost-effective, investment would probably be to increase the reliability of the supply on a citywide or regional scale.

Your observation that maintaining widely distributed electrical networks as resources become scarce will become less tenable is an important one. Low-density suburbia and exurbia could find itself in an unpleasant infrastructure squeeze, as road, water, gas, sewer, and electrical infrastructure age and need to be repaired or replaced. Dense or clustered developments that minimize infrastructure, with good access to nearby farmland and energy-efficient rail and water transport, could be better places to live in a powered-down future.