Zero carbon electricity becomes so cheap that even ludicrously inefficient storage technologies like hydrogen are economically viable

They confound ‘Cost for the producer’ and ‘Price to pay by the grid’, of electricity from wind turbines.

The cost, producing the electricity, must contain the amortization of the building expenses and all current expenses needed for the production.
The price, the grids must pay, is a consequence of offer and demand.

In the general European connected grid, the price paid is even negative for short periods, before the more flexible producers can shut down their production. You will be paid, if you take the electricity.

A large part of the price is always omitted, the price paid by the grid at their home-region:
The transport of the energy!

As the ‘old’ producers were built near the consuming industrial centers, the existing high-voltage lines for overland transport are not at the right places, they must be rebuilt from scratch.
As in Germany, the wind propellers are in the North, in the German Bight and the flat country around, while the industrial consumers are in the South.

You’ll know it’s true when Exxon, Chevron and the US majors are starting a bidding war for hydrogen and wind energy assets. Just like they did with fracking assets.

Other part of the equation is the means of consumption-consumer, industrial, and infrastructure.

They are already involved in renewable energy. (Maybe not competing to future it, but to kill it??)
They have been involved a long time according to this article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-past-helped-launch-the-solar-industry-of-today?t=1593286398252

I notice that with the low cost of electricity in Norway at this time, the cost of grid hire is higher on my monthly bill.

That was the case in the UK and most other countries. In Norway the industrial plants were built close to the hydroelectric sources to cut down on transmission line distances.
Since wind and solar is also dependent on the right locations you can either build major energy using plants nearby, build long transmission lines, or produce hydrogen near the power source and produce electricity by hydrogen powered fuel cell at or near the consumers.

I’m sure a lot of arguments can and will be found to prove that this last solution is dumb, dangerous, uneconomical, or impossible to implement in-----…

As far as I’m aware, the only recent news of Exxon buying into alternative energy was to power their fracking fields, where wind energy is cheap because the Texas energy grid is not connected to the East and West coast systems.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-28/oil-giant-exxon-turns-to-wind-solar-for-home-state-operations

In terms of passing it on to the customer, I know that New Jersey power customers will have an increase of about $1.30 on their monthly bill to pay for the installation of the shore side infrastructure. This was from the Orsted presentation I saw a few weeks ago.

I don’t think we will see savings as consumers for a couple of reasons. Like ombugge said, the “cost of the grid” will be a charge on everyone’s power bill in some shape or form. This will pad either corporate pockets or in the NE I’m certain it will pad state pockets. Just like highway tolls…

Also, if electrical rates come down we will only find ways to cram electricity into more things. That then leads to Jevon’s paradox.