(The chart you link to is the pruned state, not the entire state, but most people do only care about the pruned state).
Personally I think that state fees in Ethereum 1 would be a mis-step; contracts and storage have not been designed to take this idea in to account and would lead to a lot of confusion, unhappiness and distrust. In short: the downsides of bringing state fees to Ethereum 1 outweigh the benefits when Ethereum 2 is on the horizon (at which point many projects will migrate to and most new projects would start on Ethereum 2).
Ethereum 2 is basically a new start so having state fees built in to the design means that execution environments can build their own mechanisms for users. To take a simple example: if state rent was introduced to Ethereum 1 and I have a token balance on a given contract “someone” has to pay for the entirety of the contract’s storage to stick around or I lose my tokens. In Ethereum 2 each account’s balance would be held in an “owned state” that is controlled by the token contract but paid for separately from the rest of the state, so I would only have to pay for my piece of the storage (note this isn’t, as far as I know, how things will work it’s just an example of how they might).