Nuclear industry and its pols caught in another backhanded deal

[FBaggins]

9. Since you've obviously run from the issue.

Too late to back out now.

Ever heard of Peter Lynch?

3. FITs do not depend on taxpayer contributions (it is not a subsidy) and no new public debt is needed to fund it
http://japanfocus.org/-Peter-Lynch/3654

From a UK solar project that receives a FIT

Q: Is the scheme relying on a government initiative for part funding? If so, can the project survive without this funding?
The project will be registered under the Government’s Feed-in Tariff (FIT) programme. The FIT is not a subsidy or funding from the Government but is legislation that requires energy companies to pay a guaranteed tariff for 25 years.
https://brixtonenergy.co.uk/faq/

IIRC, China and Canada have a WTO dispute going on re: a FIT that China claims is an illegitimate government subsidy... while Canada insists that it isn't a subsidy at all.

From a pair of renewables sites.

1. The Feed in Tariff (FIT) that is used in Germany does not get any funds from public taxation therefore it is not a subsidy.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/03/solar-protest-in-berlin-over-perceived-slowdown-of-renewable-energy-transition

The brilliant thing about a feed-in tariff (FIT) is that it is NOT a subsidy. It is a rate payer surcharge.

http://www.naturallifenetwork.com/news_detail.cfm?news=259

From those advocating a FIT in NV

FITs cost the government (taxpayers) and utility nothing—zero ($0.00), thus a FIT is not a subsidy!

http://www.fit4nv.org/

From those advocating a FIT in Hawaii

The FIT law benefits everyone
Germany's groundbreaking law is not a subsidy. No tax dollars are used to bring in renewable energy.

http://www.fit-hawaii.com/

Still think everyone considers a FIT to be a government subsidy?