This completely ignores the fact that every form of power generation is heavily subsidized, one way or another. For example, in the USA "some states" heavily subsidize fossil fuels by not raising any tax on gas. Somewhat of a nitpicking point you are raising here..

The point of the article is that in this case, even without subsidies solar would beat anything else. This is despite heavy import duties that were recently imposed.

>heavily subsidize fossil fuels by not raising any tax on gas.

Unless they are taxing solar, that's not a subsidy when comparing the two.

Where fossil fuels are subsidized is in the externalities they don't pay for (i.e. environmental impact).

Highly polluting energy sources are not paying to clean up the environmental costs that they produce. Maybe THEY are the free riders.

From some externality to society perspective, sure. But that's definitely not true of a grid operation cost perspective.

A coal power plant does not get paid retail rates for the power it generates. The utility company charges more precisely to pay for transmission and the people to maintain it.

Ok, so what?

Let's punish the free riders and reward the people who are reducing the total societial cost of energy.

The fact that solar owners get access to the energy grid for free seems like a clever way to punish the free riders by increasing their costs in a roundabout way.

Don't want to pay the higher costs for your power grid? Then upgrade to cleaner energy! Sounds great.

You're punishing the wrong people, why is that difficult to understand?

The companies that operate grids are not the free riders. By having idiotic legislation that allows solar owners to free ride the grid, you only punished the utility company. Sometimes they own power plants, sometimes they don't.