While still an improvement, without the 30% subsidies the rate would shoot up to ~$.11.
Always important to keep subsidies in mind when dealing with new large-scale tech like this.
I can't find directly comparable data; the closest I could find was something[1] from the U.S. department of energy that claims a 2007 allocation of about $10 billion to areas other than research, end use, and conservation. If you believe Wikipedia's figures[2] of 29 PWh in 2005 and assume that 2005 and 2007 are similar enough to compare, that's about $0.36 per kilowatt hour in subsidies. If we assume that PG&E is typical, it implies that they're already charging $0.36 less than their "true costs" as a result of federal subsidies.
It's an extremely rough figure, and I suspect a proper breakdown would give a much lower number, but it does demonstrate that removing the effect of subsidies is not so simple.
edit: Helps if I actually include citations.
[1]http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum....
[2]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Energy_in_the...
"A 100-kilowatt Bloom server array costs around $700,000 to $800,000, or $7,500 a kilowatt, after incentives that cover around 50 percent of the costs"
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/bloom-vs.-solar-...
There are more than 2 people at home, and we often go over PG&E's "baseline". Electric water heater, etc.
My marginal cost for the extra kwh's is $0.30, and often $0.40 for the last little bit. Having something (out here in the hills) to spit out some electricity for (T.C.O) $0.15 / kwh would save me money.