The Columbus Dispatch first published this opinion piece.

Intel, Amazon, and Google have all recently invested billions of dollars in central Ohio’s 'Silicon Heartland.'

Big and small technology companies are adding new microchip manufacturing plants, high-speed digital data storage centers, and artificial intelligence computing servers to Ohio’s traditional industrial and advanced manufacturing sector, all of which significantly increase demand for energy, especially reliable electricity.

When energy supply fails to keep pace with energy demand, energy prices rise.

That fact is taught in Economics 101.

Ohio does not produce enough of its own electricity to meet its industrial and residential demand, requiring it to import electricity from other states. Not surprisingly, Ohio now pays record prices for electricity on the open regional energy market.

For Ohio’s energy supply to better meet the state’s affordable energy needs, officials should pursue energy policies that promote market competition, avoid tax-subsidized favoritism, reduce regulatory obstacles for expanding Ohio’s energy infrastructure and enhance transparency.

Ohio’s cold winters, cloudy days, and inconsistent wind patterns prevent renewable solar and wind energy sources from contributing much to the state’s power grid.

Since the shale boom, natural gas 'combined cycle' power plants have become the state’s dominant resource for electricity production, meaning we rely heavily on gas storage and pipeline infrastructure to heat our homes, fuel our factories, and keep the lights on.

To meet rising demand, Ohio should build more pipelines, more fuel storage capacity, more generators, and more transmission lines—and it should do so through competitive bids on open markets, not government favors or taxpayer subsidies.

As the energy infrastructure expands, so should the competition among the market players to keep prices low and service reliable.

The infamous House Bill 6 debacle that saw an energy company pay millions of dollars to state politicians and regulators in exchange for public subsidies taught Ohio an embarrassing lesson.

To avoid repeating that painful mistake, policymakers must resist the temptation to subsidize politically preferred energy sources or providers. Such subsidies encourage corruption, manipulate markets, and distort corporate decision-making — all to the consumer’s detriment.

Instead of taxpayer-funded corporate handouts, policymakers should promote market competition and reduce regulatory red-tape that makes increasing energy supply more difficult and expensive.

Negotiations between electricity suppliers and industrial-scale users for new infrastructure should be open and transparent. Private investors should bear the risk of such energy-sector investments, not ratepayers.

Unlike government subsidies, competitive bids and contracts, transparent pricing options, and multi-sector risk-sharing agreements will improve cost-savings, enhance reliable service, and show where more energy infrastructure is truly needed.

Government regulations at the federal, state, and local levels also make it more difficult and more expensive to improve energy infrastructure.

Power plant construction permits, for example, are notoriously slow. Delaying new energy infrastructure construction restricts the supply of affordable electricity just as new demand for it rises. To help balance energy supply and demand, state and local policymakers should work with regulators to revise relevant rules and make permitting more efficient across the state.

Ohio needs a more competitive, more transparent, and less subsidized energy market.

The rapidly evolving 21st century economy runs on electricity and demand for reliable power shows no signs of abating. Without affordable electricity, Ohio risks losing economic market share to states with more energy and lower energy prices.

That’s an avoidable risk not worth taking.

Rea S. Hederman Jr. is vice president of policy and executive director of the Economic Research Center at The Buckeye Institute.