Also, isn't most of the fossil fuel industry in the US subsidized anyway?
I can't say for sure in the USA, but be careful whenever you see the accusation of an industry being "subsidized." Often all it means is "they're not paying as much as some other country somewhere, and thus the government theoretically could be getting more from them, therefore they are being subsidized." I've seen non-producing and/or tiny countries being trotted out as examples of this actually being used in an argument, but it happens in bigger ways too.
This is exactly the case with Timber between Canada and the USA right now, and the source of an ongoing trade dispute. Canada's resource royalties for logging on Crown land (government-owned things are called "Crown-whatever" because we're technically a monarchy btw) is significantly lower than what the USA charges for the same type of thing, and so the USA is accusing Canada of subsidizing the logging industry in Canada. No money is going from the Government to the companies, but it's being
called a subsidy because we aren't charging as much as the USA is for the same thing, and thus the costs for the companies is less, and our lumber is cheaper for the same product.
This is what I understand is often accused of Oil companies as well. Are there actual cases of being given money straight-out? Maybe, but (in Canada at least) I've never heard of such. Tax incentives do exist, such as if the price of oil is below a certain amount, the amount of Royalties for oil from the Oilsands in Alberta go down drastically (It's not worth it to work it in the first place if it's not above a certain threshold, so the idea is to keep the industry working and employing people rather than shutting down since it
will swing back up), and IIRC there's some type of deal with some of the offshore stuff off of Newfoundland, but I'm much less sure on that one.