[ljf]

A state backed supplier is different to a subsidy.

In the past the only way that solar and wind were economical was if the state covering part of the cost of the energy created - so the company could sell at x cents a unit and the govt would pay a proportion of that or a fixed amount per unit, agreed before the plant came online.

The state owning an energy production company is a different thing and is relatively common in Europe.

Also - do you know how much nearly all govt subsidise all engery suppliers? Coal, gas and nuclear? It is huge! I'll find some stats, but nuclear couldn't exist without massive subsidies and without the state picking up the cost of decommissioning. Even gas and coal get major breaks and deals - these are just the price that states pay for power (yes even in the US).

The aluminium company buying energy options again is not that unusual - I agree understanding if there are tax breaks would be good, but I wouldn't assume there are until I saw it documented.

[tucaz]

> A state backed supplier is different to a subsidy

I can agree if we change it to "A state-backed supplier could be different to a subsidy".

Let's take Brazil, my home country, for example. The last government used tax-payers money to keep Petrobras from raising the gas prices for too long. You can call this a subsidy or not. I know I do. It's the same case: Petrobras is a state-backed company and look at what happened?

I know there is a lot of energy subsidies and if it was by me I'd say cut'em all and let the market figure it out.