You see it’s quite the opposite of free market forces.
Unfortunately, iirc most of the windfarms are owned by a few people, but people are getting paid for wind instead of fracking. I don't think wind and oil are at competition in Texas though. Most oil drilled in Texas isn't destined for Texas, or the US really.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-ga...
The percentage depletion part of the tax code is specific to oil and gas, so it's not quite the same as saying it's what "ever [sic] business in the country does." I agree it's not a subsidy, but it seems like a very specific carve-out for a very specific industry and a specific commodity. It feels to the layperson that it's an odd fact that the percentage depletion can exceed the cost of the well, which makes non-viable wells suddenly viable again. That seems like favoring a specific industry in legislation. A dairy farmer cannot, for example, depreciate "future reserves" of cows milk to make a non-viable farm suddenly profitable, can they? (Understanding that there are true subsidies for farming, that may not be a good analogy).
Compared to a standard utility, which is a regulated monopoly that does five year planning based off old data and the inertia of a large corp with no competition, the Texas energy market is the Wild West. Nearly anybody can connect their project to the grid and sell at the prices they want to sell at.
And that's why Texas is installing massive amounts of battery storage, wind, and solar, compared to new natural gas. There's no mandate for GW of battery capacity, it's just people thinking they can make a buck on arbitrage of all the wind and solar electricity.
He's the guy who is buying off the politicians so that they create the zones where he can get excessive powers to do whatever he wants.