PG&E is also carrying on a lot of legacy generation capability. They'd love to replace it all with renewables and storage (and peaker plants), but it takes time and money. So for the moment they're selling more-expensive power.
When they're all done they'll be providing power cheaper than your home solar setup, even with their additional requirements (like paying for rural electrification). But that's some time off.
Really? Could you cite a source with some numbers? On my PG&E bill, the cost of power generation is about 44%, the remaining extra requirements (transmission/distribution, billing, legal compliance, etc.) are the other 56%. Based on that I extrapolated to thinking that the long term future of electricity is to remove the grid because the cost of moving power around exceeds the cost of generating it, but that extrapolation makes for a big assumption. I'd love to see an analysis if you know of one?
[1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf Figure ES-1
[2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_03.html
That's kinda dicey, since it leaves you without recourse if you get a few days of no sun, unless you've got truly ginormous battery packs. The grid overhead is unfortunate, but it's a great backup that has to be funded even if you rarely use it.
Perhaps some of that overhead can be reduced by more renewables. It does seem awfully high to have more than half of the costs be unrelated to power.
Which is less than two thirds. (PG&E's unique incompetence seems to make the bargain less clear in California.)
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...
It's fairly easy to put together a solar system that pays itself off in single digit years but lasts 20-30.
And I already have the generator and the fuel because PG&E uptime is bad and forces me to maintain parallel infrastructure anyway. Once income-based connection charges go live, there's no reason for me to stay connected to the grid at all.