I realize your comment is not contributing to the discussion, but surely you must know that it's still far cheaper than running your own power plant to generate enough energy to power your home, right?
Playing devil's advocate, someone might point out rooftop solar.
The problem with solar is if you're going to play utility, you need batteries. The cost of the panels, installation, batteries, and maintenance add up to enough that if it were cost-effective, utilities would build out more solar. The economies of scale make it cheaper for utilities to manage.
You can sell excess power to the utility, but don't expect that to last in its current form. When 95% of customers use at least 10 kWh per day, you can bill for use and ignore the connection fee. When 50% of customers net-use almost zero, the utility still has to maintain the connection and the network, so expect either connection fee or wholesale producer prices. Net metering doesn't scale.
Now, if you're in a remote area or one prone to wildfires, solar might actually be cheaper, and PG&E might look more like Solar City for those communities.
Buying panels is still more expensive than paying an electric company for electricity. It takes many years before you start to get a return on your investment. So I don't think that's really a valid counter argument..
