RealClear Energy first published this opinion piece.

On inauguration day, President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency. A flurry of executive orders rescinded much of the Biden administration’s energy policy and directed federal agencies to expedite energy-infrastructure permits and encourage energy production across the country.

Failed federal policies are not the only energy choices currently under review. As demand for electricity soars and prices continue to climb, state policymakers have also begun revisiting their own energy rules that have stymied transmission, taken powerplants offline, and relied too heavily on unreliable alternative energies. Better late than never.

In Virginia, for example, Governor Glen Youngkin unhitched the state’s wagon from California’s electric vehicle mandates and recently admitted that the prior administration’s “green energy” policies need to be repealed. In his 2025 state address, Youngkin lamented that “The Virginia Clean Economy Act, passed in 2020, simply is not working. It is driving up rates, driving down reliability, and constricting our economic growth.” Wind and solar power, it seems, will not meet Virginia’s electricity needs now or in the foreseeable future.

And in Ohio, a state with a traditional power-hungry manufacturing base, Intel’s new advanced microchip plant, a proliferation of digital data centers, and defense contractor Anduril have all added to the state’s appetite for reliable electricity. The extra demand leads to higher consumer power prices, and state lawmakers have wisely unveiled legislation designed to spur reliable electricity generation by unlocking Ohio’s shale oil and natural gas reserves. The bill also curbs government-funded subsidies and misguided solar energy projects that have rewarded inefficient energy producers at taxpayer and consumer expense. Those are steps in the right direction.

Energy demand in America had largely plateaued at the turn of the century and state policymakers responded by closing coal-, natural gas-, and nuclear power-plants. Politicians pledged to regulate traditional energy producers out of business, dramatically reduce “carbon footprints,” and vowed that their states would be carbon-neutral within a decade. California and a few other states still plan to eliminate gas powered cars on their highways soon. New Jersey had hoped to rely on offshore windmills and have net zero carbon gas emissions in less than 20 years. But a major New Jersey investor has already pulled out, making the project unviable. Other states have closed coal-powered electricity plants sooner than necessary. Those short-sighted moves have and continue to cut reliable, efficient energy production just as energy demand skyrockets at the dawn of the digital age.

States like New Jersey have seen residential electricity prices climb by more than 10%, while Pennsylvania electricity prices declined over the same period. Yet New Jersey’s prices could soar more if Pennsylvania made similarly poor choices. On the east coast, for example, multiple states share and contribute energy to a regional electricity grid. Pennsylvania’s abundant coal and natural gas allow it to produce more electricity than it consumes and therefore help power Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. But when those low-energy states make bad energy decisions, prematurely close powerplants, and artificially subsidize expensive, unreliable energy sources, they inevitably raise the regional price of electricity elsewhere.

Rising electricity prices and increased electricity demand are forcing some states to change course. Maryland is reducing its climate-change spending due to budget deficits and sluggish economic growth. And even New York and Vermont are reconsidering their grandiose and unaffordable green energy plans. States that cannot produce reliable, affordable electricity will soon be at a significant economic disadvantage.

To his credit, President Trump recognizes the risks of failed federal energy policies that have over-regulated power producers and over-hyped and over-subsidized “green” energies. State leaders would be wise to do the same. As economic and policy analysts at The Buckeye Institute have recommended, states need energy policies that foster competition in energy markets to help increase supply to meet the spiking demand. State legislation should use market forces, not taxpayer subsidies, to expand the necessary energy infrastructure. And state-level regulatory reforms should ease costs and burdens currently imposed on energy companies that ultimately inflate the household electric bill with surcharges and fees.

The energy demands of 21st century computing and manufacturing in America will not be met by windmills and solar panels—at least not anytime soon. Modern families and businesses need affordable and reliable electricity sources that will keep the lights on even when the sun isn’t shining. Some state and federal policymakers seem to understand that and are now rethinking bad energy policy. And that’s a good thing. 
 
Rea S. Hederman Jr. is vice president of policy at The Buckeye Institute.