They shouldn't be subsidizing one form of low-carbon generation but not another. That will distort the market and lead to buying subsidized forms that are more expensive overall.
That is, to subsidize solar 33% (our current subsidy in the US), you would have to make a carbon tax equivalent to 50% of the current price of fossil fuels, or about $1.50/gal. This is obviously politically untenable in the United States.
The happy medium is probably to do a bit of both, and work toward the middle. Smart, targeted subsidies for carbon-neutral sources, and small, gradually increasing carbon taxes.
In fact, there's a fair amount of popular support for basic income. Meanwhile a leading idea for carbon pricing is a flat fee per ton with the money returned to the population, equal amount per capita, which essentially is a small basic income funded by the carbon tax.
British Columbia has a revenue-neutral carbon tax (in their case by reducing payroll taxes accordingly) and reportedly it's popular. The opposition party ran against it and lost.
Between the WA defeat and Trump win, that's probably pushed back a few years.